IP Address Evidence Alone – Is It Enough to Convict You?

IP Address Evidence Alone – Is It Enough to Convict You?

Federal prosecutors trace an IP address to your home. They show up with a warrant. They seize your computer. And now you’re facing federal charges based primarily on that IP address connection. Here’s what nobody tells you: three federal judges in three different states have ruled that an IP address is not a person. An IP address identifies a computer – or more accurately, a router – not the human being who used it. The evidence that seems ironclad to investigators may be fundamentally flawed.

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you real information about IP address evidence in federal computer crime cases – what it actually proves, what it doesn’t prove, and why courts have increasingly questioned whether IP evidence alone can identify a specific person. Todd Spodek has defended clients facing federal charges where IP address evidence was the primary connection to the alleged crime. This article explains why that evidence may be weaker than prosecutors want you to believe.

Here’s the paradox that should concern every federal prosecutor relying on IP evidence. Police treat IP addresses like fingerprints – unique identifiers that prove exactly who committed a crime. But federal judges have ruled the opposite. In 2012, Judge Gary Brown wrote that an IP address “provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.” The comparison is devastating to the prosecution’s theory: identifying who pays the phone bill doesn’t tell you who made any specific call.

What Courts Have Actually Ruled

Heres the system revelation that changes how you should think about the evidence against you. Multiple federal courts have ruled that an IP address alone cannot identify a specific person. This isnt some fringe legal theory. Its established case law from federal judges across the country.

Judge Gary Brown in the Eastern District of New York ruled definitively in 2012. His reasoning was simple: “it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function…than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.” The judge noted that a single IP address usualy supports multiple computer devices. Different family members could have used the connection. Visitors could have accessed the network. The subscriber isnt necessarily the user.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2018 that an IP address alone isnt enough to identify a copyright infringer. In VPR Internationale v. Does, Judge Harold Baker denied a copyright holder’s subpoena specificaly becuase “an IP address does not equal a person.” Judge Baker cited a child pornography case where authorities raided the wrong people becuase real offenders were piggybacking on there WiFi connections.

Think about what this means for your case. Federal judges have recognized that IP addresses dont identify individuals. They identify network connections. The gap between “this IP address was used” and “this specific person used it” is where reasonable doubt lives.

At Spodek Law Group, we understand how to challenge IP-based evidence. Todd Spodek works with digital forensics experts who can demonstrate that IP addresses dont prove individual identity – they prove network access, which could have come from anyone.

Theres also the issue of how courts treat this evidence going forward. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has argued that IP addresses should be treated like “anonymous informants” – sources that need independent corroboration before being trusted. Thats not how prosecutors present IP evidence. They present it like a street address that proves exactly who lives there.

The Kansas Farm Nightmare

Heres the irony that proves how absurd IP geolocation can be. A family in Kansas has been visited by FBI agents, federal marshals, IRS collectors, ambulances, and police officers for years. They’ve been accused of being identity thieves, spammers, scammers, and fraudsters. People have shown up scrounging around there barn. Renters have been doxxed.

The family committed no crimes. There only “offense” was living at the geographic center of the contiguous United States.

A company called MaxMind provides IP geolocation services to over 5,000 companies. When MaxMind’s database dosent know where an IP address is located, it needed a default location to return. Rather then use decimals, they picked coordinates 38°N, 97°W. Those coordinates happen to be in the middle of the Arnold farm in Kansas.

Every time someone tries to trace a scammer, fraudster, or identity thief to an unknown location in the US, MaxMind’s database points them straight to that farm. The family has lived through years of law enforcement visits, accusations, and harassment becuase of a database design choice. There innocent – but there lives have been destroyed by geolocation that seemed accurate but wasnt.

This isnt a one-time error. 5,000 companies use MaxMind’s services. The 12% error rate MaxMind admits to in US geolocation means millions of lookups point to the wrong location. One in eight investigations could start by targeting the wrong address.

Todd Spodek understands how IP geolocation failures affect federal cases. The technology prosecutors rely on to locate suspects has documented, admitted inaccuracies. When your freedom depends on that technology being right, a 12% error rate should concern everyone.

When Geolocation Goes Wrong

Heres the uncomfortable truth about IP geolocation that prosecutors dont want juries to understand. The technology that maps IP addresses to physical locations is wrong 12% of the time in the United States. Thats MaxMind’s own admission. 12% means 1 in 8 lookups could be pointing investigators at the wrong house.

The consequence cascade is devastating. Geolocation database returns coordinates. Investigator obtains warrant based on those coordinates. Police raid the address. Innocent family has there home searched, there devices seized, there lives disrupted. And the real criminal – whoever actualy used that IP address – is never found becuase investigators were looking in the wrong place.

One man in Virginia had his home raided becuase 17 million IP addresses were associated with his house. The number itself shows how absurd the connection was. 17 million addresses didnt actualy route through his home network. A database error made it look like they did. But investigators treated that database like it was accurate, obtained a warrant, and raided an innocent person’s home.

Theres also the question of how dynamic IP addresses affect these cases. Your Internet Service Provider may assign you a different IP address every time you connect. The address you have today might have belonged to someone else yesterday. If a criminal committed a crime using an IP address that was later assigned to you, investigators tracing that crime would find you – not the criminal.

At Spodek Law Group, we scrutinize the geolocation evidence in every IP-based case. The database that pointed investigators to your home may have been wrong. The IP address they traced may have been reassigned. The technology they trusted may be fundamentaly flawed.

The David Robinson Raid

Heres the named example that shows how IP evidence destroys innocent lives. On March 30, 2016, David Robinson and his partner were starting there day in Seattle when six police officers knocked on there door with a search warrant at 6:15 in the morning. The police thought Robinson was trafficking child pornography.

Robinson was still in bed when officers arrived. He got dressed while an officer stood in the bedroom. Police spent 90 minutes searching his apartment. They interrogated him and his partner in seperate police vans.

David Robinson was innocent. He had no involvement in child pornography trafficking. His only “crime” was operating a Tor exit node – a service that helps people maintain privacy online by routing there internet traffic through volunteer nodes. When someone used Tor to access illegal content, the traffic appeared to come from Robinson’s IP address becuase it exited the Tor network through his node.

The investigation destroyed his reputation. Months after the raid, the case remained open with Robinson’s name on police documents linking him to child pornography. He was never charged becuase he did nothing wrong. But his name was permanantly associated with one of the most serious crimes in federal law – becuase of where internet traffic happened to route.

This is what IP evidence alone can do. An innocent person’s home gets raided. There life gets disrupted. There name gets linked to horrific crimes. And even when investigators realize the person is innocent, the damage is done.

Todd Spodek has seen cases where IP evidence pointed at the wrong person. The technical realities of how internet traffic routes through networks, how Tor operates, how dynamic IP addresses get reassigned – all of this creates gaps between “this IP was involved” and “this person committed the crime.”

Why IP Doesn’t Equal Identity

Heres the inversion that changes how you should think about the prosecution’s case. The question isnt wheather illegal activity was associated with your IP address. The question is wheather YOU – specificaly, personally – committed that activity. IP addresses dont answer that question. They never have. And federal judges increasingly recognize this limitation.

An IP address identifies a router, not a person. Every device on your home network shares the same public IP address. Your computer, your spouse’s phone, your teenager’s tablet, your smart TV, your guest’s laptop – all of them appear to have the same IP address when connecting to the internet. Which device committed the alleged crime? Which person was using that device? The IP address dosent tell you.

Heres the hidden connection that explains why innocent people get caught. Criminal uses open WiFi network. Crime traced to IP address. IP address traced to router owner. Router owner investigated. Real criminal never identified becuase investigators stopped at the first person they found.

Defense strategies for IP evidence include:

Shared network defense. Your IP address serves multiple devices and multiple users. Family members, roommates, visitors – anyone who accessed your network could have committed the alleged activity. The prosecution must prove YOU did it, not just that your network was used.

Unsecured WiFi defense. If your network was open or poorly secured, anyone in range could have accessed it. The prosecution cant prove the activity came from inside your home versus from someone outside your home using your connection.

Dynamic IP defense. If your ISP assigns dynamic addresses, the IP associated with the crime may have been assigned to you AFTER the crime occurred. The timeline of IP assignments matters.

Malware/hacking defense. Someone may have compromised your network or devices without your knowledge. Malware can route illegal traffic through innocent people’s connections.

At Spodek Law Group, we examine every aspect of IP evidence. Todd Spodek connects clients with forensic experts who understand how IP addresses actualy work – and how to demonstrate that IP evidence dosent prove individual guilt.

Cache Files Aren’t Knowing Possession

Heres the system revelation that affects how prosecutors prove there case. Federal courts have recognized that evidence of cache files alone is insufficient to prove “knowing possession.” This matters becuase many federal child pornography cases involve files found in browser caches or temporary folders – places where content automaticaly downloads without user action.

When you visit a webpage, your browser automaticaly caches images and content to make future visits faster. You dont choose what gets cached. You may never see the cached content. It downloads in the background without your knowledge or consent. Finding illegal content in someone’s cache dosent prove they knew it was there – it proves there browser automatically downloaded it.

This connects directly to IP evidence. Prosecutors trace an IP address to your home. They seize your computer. They find illegal content in your browser cache. They charge you with possession. But the cache evidence dosent prove you knew the content existed. The IP evidence dosent prove you were the person using the computer. The entire case rests on assumptions the prosecution cant prove.

Todd Spodek understands how cache evidence and IP evidence interact in federal cases. The technical realities of how browsers work, how content gets cached, and who actualy accessed the computer all create reasonable doubt that experienced defense attorneys know how to exploit.

Theres also the question of wheather you had the technical knowledge to even find cached content. Cache files exist in hidden system folders. Most users dont know they exist. Finding them requires technical sophistication most people dont have. If you didnt know the files existed and couldnt have found them, how can you be guilty of “knowing” possession?

The Federal Penalties You’re Facing

Heres the uncomfortable truth that makes IP evidence challenges so critical. Federal child pornography charges carry devastating mandatory minimum sentences. Possession charges carry 5-20 years per count. Receipt charges carry 5-20 years with a 5-year mandatory minimum. Distribution charges carry 5-20 years with a 5-year mandatory minimum. These arnt maximum sentences judges rarely impose. These are minimums judges cannot go below.

If the prosecution’s case rests primarily on IP evidence – evidence that three federal judges have ruled dosent identify a person – your freedom depends on challenging that evidence effectivly. The technical flaws in IP identification, the documented errors in geolocation databases, the gaps between “this IP was used” and “this person used it” – all of this creates reasonable doubt.

Sex offender registration follows federal conviction permanantly. Your on the registry for life. Employment restrictions. Housing restrictions. Travel restrictions. Community notification. The consequences extend far beyond prison. And all of it could rest on IP evidence that dosent actualy prove you committed any crime.

At Spodek Law Group, we approach every IP-based federal case with the understanding that this evidence has fundamental limitations. The prosecution presents IP addresses like fingerprints. We demonstrate they’re more like anonymous tips – potentially useful, but requiring independent corroboration before they can prove anything.

What Privacy Advocates Say About IP Evidence

Heres the expert perspective that supports challenging IP-based prosecutions. The Electronic Frontier Foundation – one of the most respected digital rights organizations in the country – has argued that IP addresses should be treated like “anonymous informants” rather then reliable identifiers.

The EFF’s position is clear. When police seek a warrant, they often try to equate IP addresses with physical locators like street addresses or vehicle license plates. But IP addresses dont work that way. A street address identifies a specific building. A license plate identifies a specific car. An IP address identifies a network connection that could have been used by anyone with access – authorized or not.

The EFF argues that IP addresses are actualy more analogous to tips from anonymous informants. In criminal law, anonymous tips require corroborating evidence before they can justify invasive searches. Police cant raid your home based solely on an anonymous caller saying you committed a crime. The EFF suggests the same standard should apply to IP addresses – they’re starting points for investigation, not proof of guilt.

This matters becuase prosecutors routinly present IP evidence as if it were conclusive. “We traced the IP address to the defendant’s home,” they say. But that statement obscures the fundamental limitation: tracing an IP to a home dosent tell you who at that home used the connection, wheather the connection was secured against outside access, or wheather the geolocation was even accurate in the first place.

Todd Spodek understands how to present these arguments effectivly in federal court. The prosecution’s IP evidence may seem overwhelming. But when you examine what IP addresses actualy prove – and dont prove – reasonable doubt emerges.

Theres also the question of how courts should treat IP evidence going forward. Privacy advocates argue that the current approach – treating IP addresses as reliable identifiers – leads to the exact problems we’ve discussed. Innocent people raided. Lives destroyed by database errors. Cases built on evidence that dosent identify any specific person. The legal framework needs to catch up with the technical reality of how IP addresses work.

What You Should Do Right Now

If federal investigators have traced an IP address to your home, or if your facing charges based primarily on IP evidence, heres exactly what you should do:

Contact a federal defense attorney immediatly. Not a general criminal lawyer. Someone who specificaly handles federal computer crime cases and understands the technical limitations of IP evidence.

Do NOT speak to investigators without counsel. Federal agents may tell you that explaining yourself will clear things up. It wont. Everything you say becomes evidence. Politely decline and contact an attorney immediatly.

Do NOT attempt to explain your network setup. Investigators may ask about your WiFi security, who has access, what devices connect. This information can hurt you. Let your attorney handle technical questions.

Preserve evidence of network access. Router logs, device lists, security settings – all of this could show that multiple people had access to your network. Do not delete or modify anything.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. The consultation is free and completly confidential. Todd Spodek can evaluate wheather the IP evidence in your case has the limitations courts have recognized, and wheather those limitations create viable defenses.

Three federal judges have ruled an IP address isnt a person. MaxMind admits 12% of US geolocations are wrong. David Robinson’s life was destroyed by IP evidence that pointed at an innocent Tor operator. The Kansas family has been raided repeatedly becuase of a database default. IP evidence is not the fingerprint prosecutors claim it is.

Your facing federal charges with mandatory minimums. The prosecution’s case may rest on evidence that dosent actualy prove you committed any crime. What you do right now determines wheather you can mount an effective defense.