Plain View & Consent

Home , Consent search

Other Search and Seizure Issues Likely to Arise in Digital Child Pornography Cases

1 NCJRL.. org

Plain View & Consent

Priscilla M. Grantham Sr. Research Counsel Nat’l Center for Justice and the Rule of Law

NCJRL.. org

Objectives

1. List the factors which must be present in order to satisfy the requirements of the plain view doctrine

2. Evaluate whether conditions have been met to uphold seizure of evidence under the PVD

3. Identify & analyze the issues inherent in applying the PVD to the seizure of evidence located in digital devices

NCJRL.. org

If in the course of a lawful search, police see items in plain view that are incriminating / have evidentiary value, they may seize the item even if there was no prior authority.

NCJRL.. org

Requirements:

1. Prior intrusion

2. Must observe item in

3. Incriminating nature of object must be

Horton v. CaliforniaCalifornia, 496 U.S. 128

NCJRL.. org

Permissible Scope of Search…

Usually determined by objects sought

Searching for semi-automatic shotgun – Where can police look?

NCJRL.. org

On Computer Screen v.

In Computer File

NCJRL.. org

cÜxáxÇà|ÇzM The Mysterious Case of the Dying Boyfriend

NCJRL.. org

• Plain View?

• Incriminating nature immediately apparent?

NCJRL.. org

“Immediately apparent”

• to believe item is contraband or evidence of criminality

• Police may rely on and

NCJRL.. org

What is a computer?

Or Something Special:

NCJRL.. org

Critical distinction -

To be admissible under P.V. doctrine, evidence must be in a place where police have a right to be.

NCJRL.. org

Carey, (10th Cir. 1999)

• Ct. said police must employ methods to avoid searching files not specified in warrant

• limit search by: – file types and titles listed on directory

–key words

NCJRL.. org

• Police searching computer for evidence of drug trafficking;

• Saw JPG files w/ sexually explicit names - opened file and discovered cp;

• Believed he had P/C that other JPG files contained cp - continued opening files expecting to find more cp

• Court said: – Confirming expectations - NOT inadvertent – Temporarily abandoned S for drug records to look for more cp. NCJRL.. org

United States v. Osorio A.F. Ct. Crim. App.(2008).

• Scope of Warrant: Photos taken on 2/12/05

• Agent’s job – Mirror hard drive

• Didn’t know scope of warrant

• Agent opened thumbnails to see if it was contraband; it was CP.

CP admissible under PV doctrine?

NCJRL.. org

Was agent in a place she was allowed to be?

Incriminating nature immediately apparent?

NCJRL.. org

Sunday School Lessons

NCJRL.. org

State v. Shroeder (WI App. 2000) • S/W to S for evidence of online harassment;

• Agent began opening all user-created files – found image of cp;

• Admissible under P.V. doctrine?

NCJRL.. org

– Don’t have to limit S. to type of evid sought in warrant – otherwise, criminals could safely hide cp in file “1986.taxreturn.”

22 NCJRL.. org

United States v. Gray, (E.D. Va. 1999). • Computer is a type of container

• Computer search like a document search

• All documents must be examined to see if w/I scope of W.

• in doing so, agent discovered clearly incriminating images …

“few people keep documents of their criminal transactions in a folder marked ‘Crime records.’ ”

NCJRL.. org

Better Safe than Sorry …

Investigator searching computer for data specified in warrant (i.e evidence of tax fraud) discovers evidence of another crime (ie. CP), safest practice:

1. suspendhd search,

2. get 2d warrant encompassing new evidence,

3. Then resume search

NCJRL.. org

Judge Kozinski set forth new guidelines. “When the gvt wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain iiitifilincriminating files, or w hen a searc hfh for evidence could result in the seizure of a computer…magistrate judges must be vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:

NCJRL.. org

Balco

1. Magistrates should insist that the gvt waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases.

NCJRL.. org

Balco 2. Segregation and redaction must either be done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. If segregation is to be done by gvt computer personnel, it must agree in warrant application that the computer personnel will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant.

NCJRL.. org

3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that information in other judicial fora.

NCJRL.. org

Balco 4. The government’s search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents.

NCJRL.. org

Balco 5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return the non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept.

NCJRL.. org

1. Due to fact that computer searches often involve intermingled materials that are difficult and time consuming to separate on-site, rsble to seize all media & take off-site for examination by expert

NCJRL.. org

2. Warrant NOT overbroad based on failure to define “search methodology.”

It is unreasonable to force police to limit their searches to files that the suspect has labeled in a particular way.

“There is no way to know what is in a file without examining its contents, just as there is no sure way of separating talcum from cocaine except by testing it.”

Ease w/ which c.p. images can be disguised forecloses D’s proposed search methodology.

Consent Searches

NCJRL.. org

1. Determine if consent was voluntarily given, based on the totality of the circumstances;

2. Summarize the basic principles of third party consent in the context of searches of computers; and

3. Recognize when there is an issue as to the validity of third party consent due to the presence of passwords, forensic software or other technological tools.

NCJRL.. org

Voluntary (totality of circumstances)

1. Characteristics of suspect:

– Education/intelligence

– Knowledge of right to refuse

–Age

– Gender

– Ability to understand English

NCJRL.. org

2.. Act of Government Agent

– Threats or Force

– Assertion of lawful Authority “I have a search warrant.”

NCJRL.. org

Limited by terms of authorization

Described by exchange btwn one granting consent & law enforcement

NCJRL.. org

Standard: “Objectively Reasonable”

• What would a rsble person have understood by exchange btwn suspect and law enforcement?

NCJRL.. org

Computer science grad student gave l.e. consent to search computer

He agreed to let officers take computer to FBI office for exam

Rsble to assume he knew it would involve more than a cursory look

United States v. Al-Marri, 230 F. Supp. 2d 423 (2007)

NCJRL.. org

• Man consented

• Police searched his computer files

• Did police exceed the scope?

NCJRL.. org

Scope of Consent Reasonableness Test:

Expressed object Statements made by Officer Statements by Suspect OK to search paper bag

Officer: “I think there are drugs in your car – can I search it?”

Suspect: “Sure – I have nothing to hide.”

NCJRL.. org

Limited by Terms of Authorization

– Expressed Object

– Limitations of person granting consent

– Modifications or withdrawal of consent during search

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate Judges Copyright © 2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law 14 Defendant consented to search of computer for evidence of stalking Limited consent to D: Drive, My Files directory, Creative Writing folder PliPolice opene d an d v iewe d con ten ts o f a folder labeled “Offshore,” believing it contained evidence of tax violations.

United States v. Stierhoff, 477 F. Supp 2d 423 (2007)

NCJRL.. org

Consent by Third Parties

General rule:

A search conducted by one other than the subject of the search is valid if the consenting party has either or authority.

NCJRL.. org

Actual Authority - origin

- Not due to property interest

- Mutual use of property by one having joint access or control for most purposes

- Assumption of risk

United States v. Matlock (1974)

NCJRL.. org

People who might have actual authority to consent:

• Parents • Spouses • Employers (maybe; not always) • Room-mates and co-tenants

* Why these people?

NCJRL.. org

Not due to their relationship

Often have mutual use and control for most purposes;

Minor children generally subject to control of parents.

NCJRL.. org

Apparent Authority Officer may rely on consent of one who seems authorized to give consent

Objective standard: Facts available to officer would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that consenting party had authority over the object of the search

3d party’s authority doesn’t automatically extend to every discreet enclosed space capable of being searched.

Mother could consent to search of son’s room in house they shared but not to locked footlocker in the room.

U.S. v. Block, 590 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1978)

Block…

“…the rule has to be one of reason that assesses the … circumstances indicating the presence or a bsence o f a discree t expectation of privacy with respect to the particular object.”

NCJRL.. org

Locks are critical in determining who is authorized to consent

“If one wants to ensure his possessions will be subject to consent search based onlly dthidue to his own consen thiftt, he is free to place these items in an area over which others do not share access or control, be it a private room or a locked suitcase under a bed.” Randolph

If a potential D. w/ a self interest in objecting is & objects, coco--tenant’stenant’s consent does not suffice for a reasonable search.

Georgia v Randolph (2006)

Defendant NOT Physically Present

Do NOT search my computer!

NCJRL.. org

U.S. v Hudspeth (8th Cir. 2008) Facts: – Valid warrant to search H’s work computer, found child porn; – Asked for his consent to search home computer; he refused; – Husband arrested, taken to jail; – Police went to his home and asked Wife for consent to search home computer; she gave consent Valid?

NCJRL.. org

• Wife had joint access/control; authorized under Matlock

• told of right to refuse

••coco--tenanttenant was not present & objecting Unlike in Randolph,

• Meets 4/A rsblness requirement;

NCJRL.. org

U.S. v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008)

• Objection loses its force when defendant is validly arrested and taken to jail.

• An objector does not have an absolute veto.

• Both presence and objection by tenant are required to render co-tenant’s consent unreasonable.

But…

NCJRL.. org

forever…

Once co-tenant refuses to grant consent, refusal remains in effect - barring an objective manifestation that he changed his mind & no longer objects.

U.S. v. Murphy, (9th Cir. 2008)

NCJRL.. org

• Defendant lawfully arrested & placed in squad car

• Co-tenant asked for and gives consent to search

Is Co-tenant’s consent valid?

NCJRL.. org

• Lawful arrest

• Reasonable to keep arrestee in back of car Defendant

• D. never refused to give consent (never asked)

United States v. Wilburn, 473 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2007)

NCJRL.. org

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate Judges Copyright © 2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law 20 • Effect of officer’s removal of Defendant more important than officer’s intent … • But for act of police, defendant would have been present

• when he registered objection from back of squad car, he was deemed to be present & objecting under Randolph.

State v. Jackson, 931 A.2d 452 (Del. Super Ct. 2007)

NCJRL.. org

Password-Protection & 3dp Consent

Police are not entitled to rely on 3d party consent to search a locked area when the third party lacks a key

A password is a digital lock.

NCJRL.. org

Marc

Welcome Margaret click on your user name to begin

Shaun

NCJRL.. org

• Police asked Conrad for consent to search computer

• She told police they each had separate, password protected files on the hard drive – did not know each other’s passwords

• Police looked at Trulock’s password protected files …

NCJRL.. org

Held:

Although Conrad could consent to a general search of computer, her authority did not extend to Trulock’s password- protected files.

NCJRL.. org

Why? • Owner affirmatively intended to exclude others from his files

•No

• One who doesn’t know passwords lacks and

Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 403 (4th Cir. 2001)

NCJRL.. org

1. Manifests owner’s E/P

2. Imppposes practical barrier to warrantless searches.

NCJRL.. org

Ambiguous facts re: 3d party’s authority = duty to investigate further

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 117 (1990)

Objective Standard : would rsble person believe party granting consent had the requisite authority?

NCJRL.. org

• Wife consents to search of home computer.

• Forensic software does not indicate presence of Husband’s passwords

• Court said o.k. based on apparent authority

• Totality of Circumstances

• Officer of reasonable caution warranted in thinking wife had authority

United Stated v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551 (4th Cir. 2007)

NCJRL.. org

Maybe; maybe not…

BkBuckner, (in dic ta ) -can’t re ly on apparen t authority while using technology to intentionally avoid discovery of passwords / encryption put in place by user.

NCJRL.. org

• 91 yr old father gave consent to search son’s computer • Only computer in house • Computer in son’s bedroom • Encase software did not reveal presence of passwords

United States v. Andrus, (10th Cir. 2007)

What would result have been if police tried to enter Andrus, jr’s room and discovered the door was locked?

NCJRL.. org

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate Judges Copyright © 2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law 24 This practice “may well be subject to question”ifit is shown that there is a “high incidence of password protection” among home computer users.

Andrus NCJRL.. org

Marc

Welcome Margaret click on your user name to begin

Shaun

NCJRL.. org

Should passwords on computers receive less weight than physical locks b/c they are not apparent from a visual inspection of the outside of the computer?

NCJRL.. org

Is using EnCase, etc. which bypasses digital locks the same as using an x-ray machine to look through a door w/out first trying the doorknob?

Gov’t can not to ignore the walls of a home by relying on new technology that uses thermal imaging to perceive activities behind those walls.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

NCJRL.. org

Encase

• Highly configurable by users

• Provides users w/ ability to check for digital locks manually and easily

NCJRL.. org

Now you can…

1. Determine if consent was voluntarily given, based on the totality of the circumstances;

2. Summarize the basic principles of 3dp consent in the context of searches of computers; and

3. Recognize when there is an issue as to the validity of 3dp consent due to passwords, forensic software or other technological tools.

NCJRL.. org

Priscilla M. Grantham [email protected] (662) 915-6929

NCJRL.. org