Valve Dev Jess Cliffe Arrested for Child Sex Exploitation

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,629
No comments from Valve and very few details exist outside what is being reported by local KIRO 7 news in Seattle (autostart video warning. Mr. Cliffe was part of Valve's Counter Strike: Global Offensive team.


Jess Cliffe, the co-creator of Counter-Strike and a game computer designer for Valve Corporation, was booked early Thursday for sexual exploitation of a child.

Police did not immediately release details, and Cliffe was not charged with a crime. Police did not say if an actual child was harmed. Cliffe does not have a criminal history.

Jail records show he was booked at 1:17 a.m. into the King County Jail. He’s expected to have a bail hearing Friday afternoon.

A law enforcement source told KIRO 7 he was arrested at 2300 S.W. Webster Street in Seattle. That’s the address for the Southwest Precinct.
 
MrGreg62 said:
I'm confused by something though. If he was arrested and booked into jail how is it that he wasn't charged with a crime? Isn't that kinda the same thing?
Click to expand...
It's the DA who will charge the crime and the judge will decide to let him go on own recognizance or bail (ok keep him if he is a "danger").
 
MrGreg62 said:
I'm confused by something though. If he was arrested and booked into jail how is it that he wasn't charged with a crime? Isn't that kinda the same thing?
Click to expand...

From watching too much law and order, police have up to 24 or 48 hours (I forget which) to charge someone with a crime after arresting them. An arrest has to have probable cause, but having the window gives the police the opportunity to arrest someone, figure out they were simply were at the wring place at the wrong time, and release that person without messy paperwork or a record.
 
Tsumi said:
From watching too much law and order, police have up to 24 or 48 hours (I forget which) to charge someone with a crime after arresting them. An arrest has to have probable cause, but having the window gives the police the opportunity to arrest someone, figure out they were simply were at the wring place at the wrong time, and release that person without messy paperwork or a record.
Click to expand...
Or gives them ample time to find something to charge them with. Either or.
 
Can someone tell me why the police are allowed to reveal the identity of someone accused of a Crime but not the target? In this day and age of SWATTING and terrorism it can be difficult to identify the real criminal.

Why are identities revealed AT ALL?
 
bwanaaa said:
Can someone tell me why the police are allowed to reveal the identity of someone accused of a Crime but not the target? In this day and age of SWATTING and terrorism it can be difficult to identify the real criminal.

Why are identities revealed AT ALL?
Click to expand...

Public record. If the police could imprison without notice, how would you know if someone was telling the truth when they'd said been arrested?

Secret Police are not cool things.
 
wootius said:
Public record. If the police could imprison without notice, how would you know if someone was telling the truth when they'd said been arrested?

Secret Police are not cool things.
Click to expand...
Not plastering someone's identity everywhere is not secret police. It's respecting one's rights. This kind of information should only be available to close relatives unless explicitly allowed by the person that was arrested.
I'm all for making their identities public after they're convicted, but not before. The mob mentality is presumed guilty even when cleared of any wrongdoing in court.
 
M76 said:
Not plastering someone's identity everywhere is not secret police. It's respecting one's rights. This kind of information should only be available to close relatives unless explicitly allowed by the person that was arrested.
I'm all for making their identities public after they're convicted, but not before. The mob mentality is presumed guilty even when cleared of any wrongdoing in court.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'll keep an extensive public record. It doesn't take much leyway before someone will start abusing their powers. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/05/homan-square-chicago-thousands-detained

The only thing that disinfects shit like this is sunlight and lots of it.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
Not plastering someone's identity everywhere is not secret police. It's respecting one's rights. This kind of information should only be available to close relatives unless explicitly allowed by the person that was arrested.
I'm all for making their identities public after they're convicted, but not before. The mob mentality is presumed guilty even when cleared of any wrongdoing in court.
Click to expand...

The police don't plaster people's identities everywhere, the media/press does. Even limiting the information to close relatives won't keep it from getting to some slimewad "reporter" who will do anything to get their "scoop".

Don't blame the public record system. Blame people's insatiable need to constantly be shocked.
 
Will be interesting to find out exactly what happened.
 
keep-calm-and-lets-get-back-to-the-topic.png
 
MrGreg62 said:
I'm confused by something though. If he was arrested and booked into jail how is it that he wasn't charged with a crime? Isn't that kinda the same thing?
Click to expand...


They can hold him for X number of hours without being charged, if they fail to charge him in the required time then he must be released.

I've watched Law and Order and The Wire, do not challenge my supreme knowledge :LOL:
 
Tsumi said:
From watching too much law and order, police have up to 24 or 48 hours (I forget which) to charge someone with a crime after arresting them. An arrest has to have probable cause, but having the window gives the police the opportunity to arrest someone, figure out they were simply were at the wring place at the wrong time, and release that person without messy paperwork or a record.
Click to expand...


Well, there is still a record.

If you've ever been asked if you've been arrested that is what they mean, they don't mean charged or convicted. Although If I remember from my times, the questions was "arrested or convicted", sometimes as separate questions.

So what I am saying is that he will still have an arrest record, the result of the arrest could be that he was released without charges or that he was charged. If charged it goes on, was he acquitted or convicted or was their a mistrial, etc.
 
Tsumi said:
From watching too much law and order, police have up to 24 or 48 hours (I forget which) to charge someone with a crime after arresting them. An arrest has to have probable cause, but having the window gives the police the opportunity to arrest someone, figure out they were simply were at the wring place at the wrong time, and release that person without messy paperwork or a record.
Click to expand...

That's not the way that works. Police can't just take people into custody without a charge. "He wasn't charged with a crime" means that the computer system hasn't been updated yet. A lot of "law and order" type of paperwork is still done on actual paper and it takes a day or two to have it hit the computer. The latest screenshot shows that he was charged and bail was denied.

Here's your crash course in Supreme Court Police/Citizen interaction
1. Mere encounter - Police encounter a citizen and may or may not ask questions. Citizen is free to leave at any time
2. Investigative Detention - Citizen is not free to leave while a crime is being investigated and is based on reasonable suspicion. Generally less than 90 minutes, but definitely not 24-48 hours.
3. Arrest - Citizen is not free to leave. Citizen is charged with a crime based on a criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause approved by a judge.
 
Last edited:
U-238 said:
The police don't plaster people's identities everywhere, the media/press does. Even limiting the information to close relatives won't keep it from getting to some slimewad "reporter" who will do anything to get their "scoop".

Don't blame the public record system. Blame people's insatiable need to constantly be shocked.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me. Using the 'public record' as click bait. If you argue that we need sunlight to disinfect this crap, then the name of the 'accuser' should be released as well. Especially important in cases of swatting where the accuser is really the criminal.

I just watched an episode of Philip Dick's Electric Dreams where fearmongering by the 'press' is manipulated and used for corporate/bureaucratic/political interests. Too much of our 'newstream' is a sewer and no amount of sunlight is fixing it. It seems people thrive on it. But BACK TO THE TOPIC, the guy who wrote this video game is a guy who might have crossed a line. ok. I get that. why is that news?
 
bwanaaa said:
This is what bothers me. Using the 'public record' as click bait. If you argue that we need sunlight to disinfect this crap, then the name of the 'accuser' should be released as well. Especially important in cases of swatting where the accuser is really the criminal.

I just watched an episode of Philip Dick's Electric Dreams where fearmongering by the 'press' is manipulated and used for corporate/bureaucratic/political interests. Too much of our 'newstream' is a sewer and no amount of sunlight is fixing it. It seems people thrive on it. But BACK TO THE TOPIC, the guy who wrote this video game is a guy who might have crossed a line. ok. I get that. why is that news?
Click to expand...

When the accuser is a juvenile, their names are almost never released to the public.
 
So basically another case of someone who hasn't even been officially charged with anything yet but 99% of the world is already treating him like he is guilty?

Are people innocent until proven guilty in this country, or guilty until proven innocent? One of those concepts is a staple of a free country, the other is something found in 3rd world shitholes. Someone remind me which category we fit into?
 
I bet he took a leak in some bushes and a Mother with her daughter walked by and saw him. Instant Sex Offender charge applies.
 
kirbyrj said:
That's not the way that works. Police can't just take people into custody without a charge. "He wasn't charged with a crime" means that the computer system hasn't been updated yet. A lot of "law and order" type of paperwork is still done on actual paper and it takes a day or two to have it hit the computer. The latest screenshot shows that he was charged and bail was denied.

Here's your crash course in Supreme Court Police/Citizen interaction
1. Mere encounter - Police encounter a citizen and may or may not ask questions. Citizen is free to leave at any time
2. Investigative Detention - Citizen is not free to leave while a crime is being investigated and is based on reasonable suspicion. Generally less than 90 minutes, but definitely not 24-48 hours.
3. Arrest - Citizen is not free to leave. Citizen is charged with a crime based on a criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause approved by a judge.
Click to expand...

Nope. Police only need "probable cause" to execute an arrest, and do not need to file a charge immediately upon arrest. Of course, executing a warrant for an arrest means they have charges lined up already, whereas an impromptu arrest like going after someone behaving suspiciously near a crime scene won't have charges made immediately.
 
Tsumi said:
Nope. Police only need "probable cause" to execute an arrest, and do not need to file a charge immediately upon arrest. Of course, executing a warrant for an arrest means they have charges lined up already, whereas an impromptu arrest like going after someone behaving suspiciously near a crime scene won't have charges made immediately.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this from? What do you think an arrest warrant is? Police go to the judge with the criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause and the judge issues an arrest warrant.

Someone behaving suspiciously near a crime scene isn't "under arrest" as I already pointed out. They are investigatively detained. They don't go to jail. They usually just sit in handcuffs on scene while a determination is made. If they are subsequently placed under arrest, they go with the police while the charges are typed up on a criminal complaint with a supporting affidavit of probable cause and taken before a judge who sets bail prior to subsequent hearings or they are released depending on the severity of the crime.

In the case of on view arrests of misdemeanors, unless there is a reason to take them to the judge immediately, the rules of criminal procedure (which vary by state), generally allow police to release the actor prior to arraigning them before a judge with the criminal charges (DUI for example). But that isn't the case with felonies, and this guy got charged with a felony.
 
wootius said:
Nah, I'll keep an extensive public record. It doesn't take much leyway before someone will start abusing their powers. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/05/homan-square-chicago-thousands-detained

The only thing that disinfects shit like this is sunlight and lots of it.
Click to expand...


Disinfects?

That report sounds damning but it might not be the dirty place that the Guardian is making it sound like.

The Guardian lists a 10 year period for 3,540 people receiving arrest charges. Now what does that come to when we do the math? Ten years is 3,650 days, so they charged less than 1 person a day for a crime. If Homan Square is just another precinct then perhaps it's in a predominately Black part of Chicago where Whites rarely go which would easily explain the racial numbers. We have already learned that the cops can hold people for up to 72 hours without charges so being there hours or even days without charges isn't even unusual.

Look closely at your Miranda rights;

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona, that individuals who are under arrest for suspicion of having committed a crime have certain rights that must be explained to them before any questioning may occur. The rights are designed to protect your Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination and are read in a warning as follows:

  1. You have the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions.
  2. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
  3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
  4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
  5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Click to expand...

Although arrestees cannot be held without formal charges for an unreasonable amount of time, the Constitution does not spell out what this time is. Instead, these are typically set forth by state law, and the time period differs from state to state.
Click to expand...

So our State in this case is Illinois;
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets..._Illinois_Criminal_Justice_System_Aug2012.pdf

The relevant information for Illinois is;
Once taken into police custody and placed under arrest, an individual must be informed of certain constitutional (Miranda) rights prior to questioning by police. Among these is that an individual has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If a person is not advised of his or her Miranda rights prior to interrogation, the person may be able to prevent prosecutors from using the results of the interrogation in a subsequent criminal trial.
Click to expand...

When the police are seeking felony charges, the prosecutor is usually contacted to review the charges. Prosecutors are usually available around the clock to screen cases for felony charges. They can
approve felony charges, decline felony charges, or instruct the police to continue the investigation. The suspect may be held in custody for a reasonable period of time as an investigation continues. After further investigation, the police may again contact a prosecutor for approval of felony charges. If felony charges are not approved, police have the option of charging the suspect with a misdemeanor offense, if appropriate.
Click to expand...

So let's say I am contacted by a cop at my home at say 9:00 PM in the evening and arrested, the cop takes me to Holman Square and we get there at 10:00 PM, and they are not sure if they are going to charge me, they can wait several hours, even over night, so say at 6:00 AM the next day, they go ahead a book me and submit charges to the prosecutor. The prosecutor looks things over and at about 7:00 AM, he tells the officers the continue investigating the crime because there is key evidence missing, maybe they need to to ask someone some additional question. Now if the I am not a US Citizen, the Police have 48 hours to notify me that I have the right to contact my Embassy etc to arrange for legal council. Otherwise,
The suspect may be held in custody for a reasonable period of time as an investigation continues. After further investigation, the police may again contact a prosecutor for approval of felony charges. If felony charges are not approved, police have the option of charging the suspect with a misdemeanor offense, if appropriate.
Click to expand...

So how long does it take for the cops to hunt down the person and ask them the questions, let's just add 6 hours, it's now 1:00 in the after noon, another trip back to the prosecutor, he looks it over again, let's say this one is fast, 30 minutes, it's 1:30, and the prosecutor decides not to charge me. Now the cops have to decide if they will charge me with a misdemeanor, let's say no, but 30 minutes went by before the officer who gets to decide, gets to see the case so, it's 2:00 PM. Now if I have not been charged and if the cops didn't decide to interrogate me, and I haven't gone before a Judge yet, I'm still sitting in a cell and haven't seen my lawyer nor has there even been a requirement to read me my Miranda Rights but I have been in custody and detained for 17 hours and now they have to process me for release, add another hour before I get to hit the door.

Now it's up to you guys to decide if this is best case or worst case, I'm thinking it's reasonably quick given the circumstances I presented. I don't think I padded anything too much or out of proportion. One thing, I did not spot a hard and fast time frame for when they have to release someone, even in this document they simply assert the "reasonable time". Therefor It looks like unless you challenge it, like after your charged, seen your lawyer, and your lawyer says "this is bullshit", he'll take it to the Judge who will question the prosecutor and the cops on what's taking so long and if it's bullshit then the Judge orders your release.

So from what I see in the procedures set forth for Illinois, it could easily be several hours to up to 2 days before you even have a chance to see a lawyer or actually be charged depending on your citizenship and how the process moves along.

So I was looking on Google maps, this building is about one block from the main precinct and it looks like it's a holding facility for the other building so it looks like they throw everyone in there first and either release them from Holman or if they are going to be charged they transfer them over to the other main precinct building.
 
kirbyrj said:
That's not the way that works. Police can't just take people into custody without a charge. "He wasn't charged with a crime" means that the computer system hasn't been updated yet. A lot of "law and order" type of paperwork is still done on actual paper and it takes a day or two to have it hit the computer. The latest screenshot shows that he was charged and bail was denied.

Here's your crash course in Supreme Court Police/Citizen interaction
1. Mere encounter - Police encounter a citizen and may or may not ask questions. Citizen is free to leave at any time
2. Investigative Detention - Citizen is not free to leave while a crime is being investigated and is based on reasonable suspicion. Generally less than 90 minutes, but definitely not 24-48 hours.
3. Arrest - Citizen is not free to leave. Citizen is charged with a crime based on a criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause approved by a judge.
Click to expand...


It's not that your information is incorrect, it's not presented here clearly.

Look, if you are going to find yourself in a position where you will face a cop and possible arrest, it's because of a very few reasons;

A. They have a warrant and a Judge ordered your arrest.
B. They have reason to believe a crime was committed and you did it or were involved in the commission in some way.
C. Not be confused with B. They actually saw you commit a crime and they are going to take you in for it. This is not a probable cause situation, this is 'witnessing the crime" and the line may seem minor but the easiest way I know to differentiate them is that the cop didn't whiteness you commit the crime but they still have a reason to believe you did, like a witness, etc.

There is an important point of time or event that occurs that will let you know if you are in custody, a cop starts putting cuffs on you. Prior to this time, the cop can ask you questions, you are not compelled by law to answer, you can stay quiet if you chose, but Miranda rights don't have to be read to you, not until after you have been arrested, after the cuffs are on or yo are in a cell, physically, detained. You can be arrested, booked, put in a cell, and they don't have to read you your rights until you are either interrogated or go before a Judge.

#1 So my problem with your number 1, is that if you think that some cop can walk up to you and start asking you pointed questions and you can just walk away from him, I think someone is setting themselves up for a really bad day. If that cop is right on the edge of arresting you because he believes he has probable cause and in his mind he is just warming up and preparing himself to place you under arrest, and you just turn away from him to walk away, things are going to get ugly fast. So sure, if a cop is just asking you a question and doesn't believe you have committed a crime, then if you turn and walk away then he has no power to detain you, but you better know which is which before you try it, concrete doesn't taste very good.

#2 Investigative detention, I alluded to this above, the idea that the cop things he's got most of it put together, you are suspected of having committed the crime, and he is asking you questions while he decides what to do with you. He's trying to determine if he has probable cause, he's thinking about should he ask someone else nearby a question or take a look somewhere nearby for evidence, (check the bushes), remember, the Cop can't search you or your car without a warrant .... unless he arrests you. If he makes the arrest, then he can search your person and your car, but he has to have probable cause to do so if he is arresting you pursuant to a crime. Of course if the cop witnessed you commit the crime all bets are off, he's going through your pockets and your car if you were driving at the time.

Now once the cop has you confined, cuffed, locked up, etc, and he is placing you under arrest, he'll take you to holding and they have time to decide if they will book you. The Officer will complete an arrest card and state the charges he arrested you for. This is a processing document, it goes to the prosecutor and it's the prosecutor that determines if you will be charged. Therefor, you can be arrested and not charged yet. If the cop is arresting you and says he is charging you, well he means he's arresting you and he's going to tell the prosecutor what charge he says you did, he doesn't actually charge you even though the cop does report what charge he believes you earned.

So someone here thinks you can't be arrested unless there is a warrant, wrong. Someone thinks that the cops have to read you your rights as soon as they arrest you, wrong. Someone else thinks that when a cop walks up to question you on something that if they haven't put you in cuffs yet that you can just turn and walk away, take your chances, you are hoping that the cop isn't thinking that you committed a crime and that he isn't actually preparing to arrest you for it.

And if you are being arrested, don't resist the cop, even if you think the cop is wrong. Resisting arrest is a separate crime all on it's own and the only time you would get away with it is if the arresting officer is illegally arresting you. That doesn't mean that the law can't make a mistake and arrest you so you might feel that they are wrong but that doesn't mean that the arrest is illegal, it means it's mistaken. Think it through, they might even have the right guy and you don't even know it or they got the wrong guy and need time to figure it out, but if you resist them you have a new charge and you just made yourself into a criminal.
 
man now I don't wanna play CS:GO anymore.. what a creep... (allegedly) ..but probably. there is no pit in hell deep enough for the creeps that go after kids.

they need to get someone to redo whatever voice over work he did in this game..

god damn it .. it better not be him that did the "easy peasy lemon squeezy" one however..
 
Rahh said:
Not salty at all.
Click to expand...

Salty? I'm not crying any tears for this perv. CS:GO is a crap game, it needs to burn in a fire someplace. The people who play it are the worst of humanity. Well, after LoL players. But it's a close second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top