Texas Standing Statue

[G77]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: TEXAS

Hypothetical situation -

A an Undercover cop represented himself to be an adult girl on yahoo chat chatted with B who is an adult guy.After some chatting, B reveals that he is a drug dealer and subsequently got searched , arrested . B moves to suppress his evidence (Texas 38.23) based on violated Yahoo terms of service by A as he impersonated to be some one else.

Lets ASSUME that Violation of Terms of Service constitutes to some kind of state or federal statute violation and a judge can easily accept it as a crime.

I kindly request you to focus on "STANDING" while advising.

Do you see or find that B has a STANDING to claim the violation TOS crime (assumption) by A since B is also a registered Yahoo user who accepted a valid TOS or B has NO Standing at all ?

The prosecution usually brings up that the defendant doesnt have to standing to claim the violation of law and my question purely focus on the standing here.

On assumption that violating terms of service is a crime, what would be the logic or argument from B's stand point to claim that B HAS a standing.

Kindly advice and share your thoughts.
Happy Holidays to you all.

[davidmcbeth3]

May I ASSUME that you are looking at subject matter jurisdiction?

If so, then for what reasons do YOU think that jurisdictional requirements WERE met.

And then, why not?

[flyingron]

Only the parties to the implicit contract that the terms of service (and the TOS many not even be an enforceable contract). That would be the police and YAHOO.
B is not a party to the contract and has no STANDING to make any claim there.

Other than that, I'm not going to help with your homework. I'm sure your teacher didn't think that asking someone else was the way he wanted it answered.
You're supposed to put your brain to work based on the principles in your reading.

[jk]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: TEXAS

Hypothetical situation -

A an Undercover cop represented himself to be an adult girl on yahoo chat chatted with B who is an adult guy.After some chatting, B reveals that he is a drug dealer and subsequently got searched , arrested . B moves to suppress his evidence (Texas 38.23) based on violated Yahoo terms of service by A as he impersonated to be some one else.

Lets ASSUME that Violation of Terms of Service constitutes to some kind of state or federal statute violation and a judge can easily accept it as a crime.

I kindly request you to focus on "STANDING" while advising.

Do you see or find that B has a STANDING to claim the violation TOS crime (assumption) by A since B is also a registered Yahoo user who accepted a valid TOS or B has NO Standing at all ?

The prosecution usually brings up that the defendant doesnt have to standing to claim the violation of law and my question purely focus on the standing here.

On assumption that violating terms of service is a crime, what would be the logic or argument from B's stand point to claim that B HAS a standing.

Kindly advice and share your thoughts.
Happy Holidays to you all.

If you want alter reality enough to make violating the TOS a crime and standing an issue, why don't we just stretch things a bit more and live in Tom Cruise's world where those folks floating in that pool could tell the police who was going to commit a crime. That way the cops could be at your door waiting for you when you came home with the drugs in hand.

I would suggest keeping your situation to where the laws in place remain in place. If you want to start altering laws to make up some scenario, the resulting answer becomes totally meaningless.

[G77]

Hello JK

Thank you for your advice. I understand your concern. My question was primarily on standing statue and hence i made up the other aspect as just some kind of violation that involved terms of use. Violaton of Terms of use may not be a crime but to come to standing question, i had to make that as a crime in this hypothetical situation.


Thank you once again.