Leon Walker: Man Who Faces Jail For Reading Wife's Email Appears On 'Today' Show

Leon Walker, the Michigan man who may serve time behind bars for reading his now-ex-wife Clara's email as a means of exposing her extra-marital affair, appeared on the Today show this morning.

In the segment, Walker--Clara's third husband--explained why he opted to use his wife's password to break into her Gmail account on their shared computer, a move that revealed she was having an affair with her second husband, whom Walker knew to be abusive:

"I felt with the risk to my daughter and to my stepson, I had an obligation to check. I had no choice. In doing so...I confirmed everything that I was concerned about, and then some."

Walker claims she kept her passwords on a piece of paper beside the computer, and he was well within his rights to log into her account. Prosecutors have a different take: they say Walker's spying took place months after she filed for divorce, which was granted this month. What's more, Walker's ex testified that he had installed a device on their computer to keep track of her email activity.

Walker is charged with felony computer misuse--an anti-hacking law traditionally used to prosecute identity theft and stealing trade secrets--and faces up to 5 years in prison if convicted.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

[Shaun Hensley]

10:13 AM on 01/02/2011

It's only wrong if the husband snoops.

[infected]

05:26 PM on 01/01/2011

It irritates me to no end that cheating spouses are supposed to have the right to privacy in communications with their "lovers". As a spouse do I not have the right to know if my health is at risk due to the actions of my spouse which violate our marraige contract? Is it really to be considered "illegal" for me to use any means necessary to ensure my own safety? No one should have the right to "privacy" when their actions are putting in danger the health and well being of others at risk. If my health is at risk due to my spouses' infidelity, I have the right to know!!!

[Anne Mccormick]

06:26 PM on 01/01/2011

now all you have to do is convince the courts that your significant other does not have the right to privacy as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. as for the rest; that is what a good private detective is for.

[carolr51]

12:12 PM on 01/01/2011

It's only legal for the Government to spy on us.

[chucknchar]

10:58 AM on 01/02/2011

lol

[modernsage]

01:24 PM on 12/30/2010

This foolishness will degenerate to the point where men(husbands) will stand accused of seeing their wives naked!

[JustBCuz]

09:52 AM on 12/30/2010

This isn't the first case of it's kind in Michigan and it won't be the last. Going back several years there have been successful felony convictions. I'm surprised the media hasn't mentioned that.

[EricBishop]

01:27 AM on 12/30/2010

What's the statute of limitation on this law? I have about 30 ex-girlfriends who need to spend some time behind bars. This is just as absurd as those "rape by false pretense" cases.

[Shaun Hensley]

10:14 AM on 01/02/2011

That's my take, women are NOTORIOUS snoops.

[Phreejazz]

09:54 PM on 12/29/2010

Thanks to smcd17 for posting the relevant part of the statute in question:
752.795 Prohibited conduct.

"Sec. 5.
A person shall not intentiona­lly and without authorizat­ion or by exceeding valid authorizat­ion do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.”

For all the talk about privacy and expectation of privacy --including talk from the legal pundits on national programs-- it's not even at issue for a charge under this statute. All that's at issue is whether or not his access was "authorized." The statute (imho) is poorly worded, but legally, this isn't a right to privacy case.

[Intelligentia]

02:28 AM on 01/01/2011

It would seem that the man cannot be prosecuted under this statute since he had valid authorization to "access" "their shared computer." Mind you, the statute does not say anything about prohibiting logging into an account with a computer that you have "authorization" to "access". The statute is ambiguous. because it does not say anything about explain waht "property" in this regard encompasses. Is the information he obtained about the wife's extra-marital affair qualify as "property"? How can the prosecution prove that such information constitutes property. I don't know who his lawyer is, it seems that this is a case the prosecution will have some diffuiculty convicting, based on the statute you posted above. Look at it this way: One share the same room with a wife; she hides a love letter from her boyfriend in combination box in shared bedroom. She leaves the combination numbers by the box; one uses the number to open the box and reads the letter. If you replace the word "computer" with the word "bedroom" in the statute, do you think the you can be prosecuted under the statute? I don't think so, because the statute does not say anything about a "box" inside the shared bedroom, which would be equivalent to the wife's secret "e-mail account." A good defense attorney will try to box the prosecutor within the word "computer".; since defendant has valid authorized access to the "computer", prosecution won't get to "e-mail account", I think.

[Phreejazz]

08:35 PM on 01/01/2011

1) The computer in question is most likely NOT the home computer, but the server accessed by way of using the password in question. The bedroom/security box example doesn't fit because an email account isn't "inside" the personal computer in question. Logging into an account is accessing another computer. Considering that this statute is used for cases of industrial espionage and the like, I have little doubt that there's plenty of precedent establishing that an off-site server counts as such a "computer." The statute would be toothless otherwise.

2) Re: the "bedroom" example... it doesn't work on a couple of levels, first because a bedroom is not the locked security box in question. Change it to fit the facts though, with the statute prohibiting unauthorized access to a "container" or some such, though, and sure, he could be prosecuted under it: all that needs to be shown is a lack of authorization, issues like expectations of privacy aren't fundamentally in question. The counter-argument is some kind of "constructive authorization," given the accessibility of the combination, but it's weak.

3) The statute is very poorly drafted, and criminalizes activity that would, at best, subject the actor to civil liability in other contexts.

[Intelligentia]

02:35 AM on 01/01/2011

It would seem the man cannot be prosecuted under this statute since he had valid authorizat­ion to "access" "their shared computer." Mind you, the statute does not say anything about prohibitin­g logging into an account with a computer that you have "authoriza­tion" to "access". The statute is ambiguous. because it does not say anything about what the term "property" in this regard encompasse­s. Is the informatio­n he obtained about the wife's extra-mari­tal affair qualify as "property"­? How can the prosecutio­n prove that such informatio­n constitute­s property. I don't know who his lawyer is, it seems that this is a case the prosecutio­n will have some diffuicult­y convicting­, based on the statute you posted above. Look at it this way: One share the same room with a wife; she hides a love letter from her boyfriend in combinatio­n box in shared bedroom. She leaves the combinatio­n numbers by the box; one uses the number to open the box and reads the letter. If you replace the word "computer" with the word "bedroom" in the statute, do you think the you can be prosecuted under the statute? I don't think so, because the statute does not say anything about a "box" inside the shared bedroom, which would be equivalent to the wife's secret "e-mail account." A good defense attorney will try to box the prosecutor within the word "computer"­.; since defendant has valid authorized access to the "computer"­, prosecutio­n won't get to "e-mail account", I think.

[rbnjns1]

08:44 PM on 12/29/2010

I am very ticked off about this case, so what he went snooping on his wife to confirm his suspicions, even if they were already going to divorce attorney's, I would have done the same thing. Oh, but I'm white and I wouldn't have the law come after me just because of that fact!!!!! This just shows me that things haven't changed much in the sense of years, when black people got lynched for the smallest things just to do it!!!!!!! I just really can't believe that this has come to this, Leon, I hope you don't have to go to jail for your own detective work!!!!!
If I where him I would have wanted closure too and to know why my spouse is bailing out of the
marriage. This was closure for him and rightly so!!!!!

[Shaun Hensley]

10:16 AM on 01/02/2011

You're safe because you are female. There are two sets of standards for husbands and wives these days, this is just another reason for men not to marry.

[Mikalee Byerman]

07:13 PM on 12/29/2010

OK...can someone explain to me what the heck is going on in our society right now? I mean, a cheating couple earns a coveted promotional spot on the NY Times "Vows" page (giving couples around the globe something to truly aspire to...ick...), and now a man who catches his wife cheating using the password she left fully exposed is faced with jail time?!?!

It's like someone is feeding us all a whole batch of crazy.

The nuance of spouses left behind is such a hard thing to understand unless you've truly been there, done that. Personally, I'm so tired of the societal expectation that jilted ex-lovers should simply sit back, keep our heads low and stay below the radar.

We get to be upset. We get to talk. We get to feel. We get to heal in any way we can. We should not be vilified because we want answers, or need to express emotions, or be dismissed as "bitter" because we don't want to be spoon fed our lives.

This is something we're talking about on my blog at www.mikaleebyerman.wordpress.com. Come share your "whole batch of crazy" stories, if you'd like. It seems there are more than enough to go around these days...

:(

[EricBishop]

01:29 AM on 12/30/2010

Welcome to the United States of America. Since this seems to be your first day, I suggest you meet a few people in your neighborhood, try not to turn on the TV and make sure to drink yourself to sleep. Enjoy!

[Marcy Clark]

02:04 PM on 12/29/2010

Cheating drives people nuts and you hear all the time about spouses finding out about cheating through a wife or husband's email account. We can't prosecute all these crimes. These toxic people need a divorce, not jail time.

[Susan Pease Gadoua]

01:14 PM on 12/29/2010

It looks like a slippery slope. I'll be interested to see how it turns out.

[David Akinpade]

12:47 PM on 12/29/2010

This is zenith of madness, now cheating is no longer an issue, but the process of detecting a cheating wife who swore to an oath of fidelity is now a crime? they should stop wasting tax payer's money to prosecute this nonsense.

[dim]

07:42 PM on 01/23/2011

Detective work can occur without breaking the law. Ever watch Cheaters? They are pretty careful (at least in what they show) to stay legal in their snooping.

[mama1974]

12:15 PM on 12/29/2010

Just wondering if this hubby was a former "other man", perhaps in her second marriage. If I felt like I had to check up to this degree maybe the marriage isn't worth much.

[Supersteel]

09:14 AM on 12/29/2010

Walker's ex testified that he had installed a device on their computer to keep track of her email activity.
****
that is just beyond the pale.

[jbabbs12]

03:07 PM on 01/26/2011

She also said that she did not have a little book with passwords... Don't believe anything out of the mouth of her. he tries to protect his children and this is what he gets in return from her. Lol

[Supersteel]

09:08 AM on 12/29/2010

spouses have expectations of privacy too

In this case, however, with her passwords right there, it may be a bit much.

[Shaun Hensley]

10:18 AM on 01/02/2011

Right to privacy to what end? It's one thing to say that a government agency or a business shouldn't be allowed to snoop into your private life, it's quite another to suggest that your husband should be left in the dark about anything.