Federal and local investigators searched Dr. Peter Chen’s house and confiscated computers
Professor Chen’s computers were confiscated without a judge signing a search warrant
Correction, December 1st 2022: The title has been changed from “Federal and local investigators searched Dr. Peter Chen’s house without a warrant — Professor Chen’s computers were confiscated without a warrant and his not being there” to “Federal and local investigators searched Dr. Peter Chen’s house and confiscated computers — Professor Chen’s computers were confiscated without a judge signing a search warrant"
Peter Chen took the stand today, clarifying that he was at his house, when police initially arrived at 7:30 am on January 26th, 2021, and there appears to be no search warrant requested by the Ann Arbor police. Peter Chen was arrested and spent a night in jail. Peter Chen was aware of the search of his house and consented to his computers being taken. But it is clear nothing was found from the search of his house and that Federal investigators were involved. It is not clear how all the events transpired on the day of the arrest; events are being talked about out-of-order in court and this confused my source who is volunteering their time. It is clear that a search warrant was not signed by a judge at the request of the Ann Arbor police regarding the allegations against Dr. Peter Chen. And my source was mistaken yesterday after hearing the testimony of Peter Chen’s wife.
After investigators arrived at Peter Chen’s house he did eventually consent to his electronics being taken. None of these events were recorded in the redacted Washtenaw county court documents I received months ago which makes me wonder if there was a federal case against him which was subsequently dropped after no evidence was found from the search of his house based on the same allegations he stands charged on.
My source tells me that in court today Ann Arbor police testified that federal and local investigators appeared at Dr. Peter Chen’s house and confiscated his computers without a judge signing a warrant. The Ann Arbor police officer reviewed allegations against the Hall of Fame computer security professor and three to four federal and local investigators were sent to Professor Peter Chen’s house to collect his electronics. The investigators had no warrant to search his house. The investigators found no evidence of criminal activity.
On the stand, the recently promoted Ann Arbor police officer in charge of sexual abuse cases explained that he thought there was sense of urgency in conducting the search of Professor Peter Chen’s house in that Dr. Chen could delete possible video records relating to the allegations. The police officer based the cause for his search on a video of a forensic interview and two letters of the allegations against Dr. Peter Chen.
The defense asked the police officer if he knew that the first of the two letters he was given said the victim did not know herself if the allegations were true. He answered he did not know of her statement.1
Many states have standardized their own forensic interview protocols to minimize suggestive questioning when conducting child forensic interviews. The police officer testified that he was not aware if the video of the forensic interview he watched followed said protocols for minimizing suggestive questions, and that he was not clear on the details of the protocols himself.2
The police officer asked to read the letter in court. The defense attorney gave him the letter and he read it for a few minutes. He turned to the defense attorney and said he couldn’t find the statement of the victims not knowing herself if the allegations were true. The defense pointed it out to him. He scrutinized the letter for a few moments before acknowledging the presence of the statement.
“First, forensic interviews are hypothesis-testing rather than hypothesis-confirming (Ceci & Bruck, 1995). Interviewers prepare by generating a set of alternative hypotheses about the source and meaning of the allegations. During an interview, interviewers attempt to rule out alternative explanations for the allegations. For example, when children use terms that suggest sexual touching, interviewers assess the children’s understanding of those terms and explore whether touching might have occurred in the context of routine caregiving or medical treatment. When children report details that seem inconsistent, interviewers try to clarify whether the events could have occurred as described, perhaps by exploring whether the children are describing more than one event or are using words in nonstandard ways.” See State of Michigan, Governor’s Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect and Department of Health and Human Services in Forensic Interviewing Protocol. Fourth Edition [online]