Husband faces five years for looking through wife's email

Could someone face prison time for snooping through a spouse's e-mails?

For Leon Walker of Michigan, the answer was yes.

Suspecting that his wife was involved with another man, and worried that it was affecting their daughter, Walker logged into Clara Walker's Gmail account last summer.

Walker, 33, said it was easy for him to log in because his wife kept the password in a book next to the computer.

"I definitely felt it was OK to confirm [the affair] by reading her e-mail in our home," said Walker.

While Walker believed it was OK, Oakland County prosecutors did not and have charged Walker with felony misuse of a computer. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison.

This is Michigan's first criminal prosecution for snooping through a spouse's e-mails. So far, two Michigan judges have refused to toss out the charges in the potentially precedent-setting case.

I guess you thought this part was totally irrelevant and that is why you did not include it:

"Prosecutors contend that Walker -- who is a computer technician -- illegally hacked into his wife's computer after she had filed for divorce,"

Was being a computer technician relevant to his action being considered a crime at all?

Inasmuch as a locksmith pushing the door to Walmart open during business hours is relevant to charging the locksmith with burglary.

She regularly allowed him to use the computer and put her passwords in a book next to the computer. The prosecuting attorney is an idiot. No hacking was involved here.

Was being a computer technician relevant to his action being considered a crime at all?

Inasmuch as a locksmith pushing the door to Walmart open during business hours is relevant to charging the locksmith with burglary.

She regularly allowed him to use the computer and put her passwords in a book next to the computer. The prosecuting attorney is an idiot. No hacking was involved here.

I am not sure what that means. Say he was a plumber and keep everything else the same. Are you saying he would not have been charged?

I'm saying that it's immaterial and the fact that the prosecutor is citing this fact just shows how little she understands the situation.

I guess you thought this part was totally irrelevant and that is why you did not include it:

"Prosecutors contend that Walker -- who is a computer technician -- illegally hacked into his wife's computer after she had filed for divorce,"