Court Rules 'Cannibal Cop' Can Fantasize About Whatever He Wants

NEW YORK -- Don't call him the "cannibal cop" anymore.

A federal appeals court on Thursday tossed the final remaining conviction of Gilberto Valle, a former NYPD officer who was infamously prosecuted for fantasizing on an online forum about cooking and eating his wife and other women alive -- from a work computer.

The ghastly details of the Valle case and his 2013 trial fueled a media maelstrom in New York -- even inspiring an HBO documentary. But last year, a federal judge threw out a jury verdict convicting Valle of the most serious charge he faced -- kidnapping conspiracy -- ruling the evidence insufficient.

"Despite the highly disturbing nature of Valle’s deviant and depraved sexual interests," U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe wrote in 2014, "his chats and emails about these interests are not sufficient -- standing alone -- to make out the elements of conspiracy to commit kidnapping."

The judge upheld Valle's separate conviction under the federal anti-hacking statute -- the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- reasoning that his use of  various government databases to look up women with "no law enforcement purpose" meant that he violated the law.

In its 2-to-1 ruling Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned that conviction as well. In his preface, Judge Barrington Parker eloquently explained the larger import of the Valle case.

"This is a case about the line between fantasy and criminal intent," Parker wrote. "Although it is increasingly challenging to identify that line in the Internet age, it still exists and it must be rationally discernible in order to ensure that a person's inclinations and fantasies are his own and beyond the reach of the government."

He added: "Fantasizing about committing a crime, even a crime of violence against a real person whom you know, is not a crime." 

Though the court's 38-page decision didn't touch on the constitutional implications of criminalizing fantasies, it did describe in detail Valle's obsessions and machinations on the Dark Fetish Network, an Internet community where he joined others to discuss "gruesome and graphic" fantasies involving several women, including acts of cannibalism.

In the end, the court reaffirmed that Valle's "real" chats purporting to plot otherwise grisly acts were no more than "outlandish" ideations.

"The mere indulgence of fantasy, even of the repugnant and unsettling kind here, is not, without more, criminal," Parker wrote.

But the court also explained that this reading of the statute was necessary to avoid prosecutorial abuse and criminalization of even "ordinary behavior." 

"While the Government might promise that it would not prosecute an individual for checking Facebook at work, we are not at liberty to take prosecutors at their word in such matters," Parker wrote. "A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly."

This result not only benefits Valle, but others who may be caught in a similar predicament. And as noted by Reuters' Alison Frankel, Thursday's decision deepens a division among lower courts as to whether the kind of conduct Valle engaged in -- violating a computer policy even though he clearly had a right to access it -- constitutes a federal crime. 

This means this case could make it to the Supreme Court to resolve that division -- a prospect that largely depends on the Justice Department's next move.

Curiously, the Supreme Court on Monday heard a case implicating the same computer-crimes provision, but in context that likely won't carry implications for the Valle case. Even then, at least Justice Samuel Alito seemed confused by what the law says.

"I don't really see a difference between making unauthorized access and exceeding authorized access," Alito said as he delved into a lengthy hypothetical about how that language could be construed in mundane situations.

So at least on this point, the Valle saga may not be over yet.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.