Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

1

Other Search and Seizure Issues Likely to Arise in Digital Child

Pornography Cases

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg1

Plain View & Consent

Priscilla M. Grantham

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Sr. Research Counsel

Nat’l Center for Justice and the Rule of Law

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

2

Plain View Doctrine:

If in the course of a lawful search, police see items in plain view that areincriminating / have evidentiary value, h i h i if h

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

they may seize the item even if there was no prior authority. 

Requirements:

1. Prior intrusion

2 Must observe item in

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

2. Must observe item in

3. Incriminating nature of object must be

Horton v. CaliforniaHorton v. California, 496 U.S. 128

Permissible Scope of Search…Permissible Scope of Search…

Usually determined by objects sought

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

3

P.V. & Computers: Where is the Image / Info?

On Computer Screen

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

In Computer File

v.

cÜxáxÇà|ÇzMThe Mysterious Case

f th

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

of the Dying Boyfriend

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

4

• Valid intrusion?

• Plain View?

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Incriminating nature immediately apparent?

“Immediately apparent”

• to believe item is contraband or evidence of criminality

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Police may rely on and

What is a computer?

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

5

What is a Search for dataIn a computer ?

A document search:

Or

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Or

Something Special:

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

Critical distinction -

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

place where police have a right to be.

Carey, (10th Cir. 1999)

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• limit search by:

– file types and titles listed on directory

– key words

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

6

Carey (10th Cir.)

• Police searching computer for evidence of drug trafficking;

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• 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.

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

• Agent’s job – Mirror hard drive

United States v. OsorioA.F. Ct. Crim. App.(2008).

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Didn’t know scope of warrant

• Agent opened thumbnails to see if it was

contraband; it was CP.

CP admissible under PV doctrine?

Was agent in a place she was allowed to be?

Incriminating nature immediately apparent?Incriminating nature immediately apparent?

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

7

Limiting searches by file type, names, dates…

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Sunday School Lessons

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;

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Admissible under P.V. doctrine?

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

8

– computer search like a S. for paper documents;

– Don’t have to limit S. to type of evid sought in warrant – otherwise criminals could safely

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

warrant otherwise, criminals could safely hide cp in file “1986.taxreturn.”

22

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.

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• in doing so, agent discovered clearly incriminating images …

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

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 d h

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

1. suspend search,

2. get 2d warrant encompassing new evidence,

3. Then resume search

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

9

Balco 9th Cir. (Comp. Drug Testing.)2009 WL 2605378

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 i i i ti fil h h f

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

incriminating files, or when a search 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:

Balco

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Balco2. 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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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.

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

10

Balco

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

jfora.

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.

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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.

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

11

Flashback to 2004…

Judge Kozinski issued opinion which was affirmed by 9th Cir. In which he held:

1. Due to fact that computer searches often involve intermingled materials that are difficult and time consuming to separate on-site rsble

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

and time consuming to separate on-site, rsble to seize all media & take off-site for examination by expert

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

12

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

Objectives:

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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.

Voluntary (totality of circumstances)

1. Characteristics of suspect:

– Education/intelligence

– Knowledge of right to refuse

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

– Age

– Gender

– Ability to understand English

2.. Act of Government Agent

– Threats or Force

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

13

Scope of Consent

Limited by terms of authorization

Described by exchange btwn one granting

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

consent & law enforcement

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

Standard: “Objectively Reasonable”

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

14

• Police asked to search man’s apt. –assault on his neighbor

• Man consented

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Police searched his computer files

• Did police exceed the scope?

Scope of Consent        Reasonableness Test:

Expressed object

Statements made by Officer

Statements by SuspectOK to search paper bag

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

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

– Expressed Object

Limited by Terms of Authorization

– 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 JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

15

Defendant consented to search of computer for evidence of stalking

Limited consent to D: Drive, My Files directory, Creative Writing folder

P li d d i d t t f

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Police opened and viewed contents of a folder labeled “Offshore,” believing it contained evidence of tax violations.

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

General rule:

A search conducted by one other than the subject of the search is valid if the

Consent by Third Parties

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

subject of the search is valid if the consenting party has either

or authority.

Actual Authority - origin

- Not due to property interest

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

access or control for most purposes

- Assumption of risk

United States v. Matlock (1974)

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

16

Actual Authority

• Parents• Spouses

People who might have actual authority to consent:

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

* Why these people?

Not due to their relationship

Often have mutual use and control for most purposes;

Minor children generally subject to control of parents.

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Apparent AuthorityOfficer may rely on consent of one who Officer may rely on consent of one who seemsseems

authorized to give consentauthorized to give consent

Objective standard:

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

17

Caveat …

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 th b f di t

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

the presence or absence of a discreet expectation of privacy with respect to the particular object.”

Locks are critical in determining who is authorized to consent

“If one wants to ensure his possessions will be subject to consent search based

l d t hi t h i f tonly due to his own consent, 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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

18

Disagreement Between Parties

If a potential D. w/ a self interest in objecting is If a potential D. w/ a self interest in objecting is & objects, co& objects, co--tenant’s tenant’s

consent does consent does notnot suffice for a reasonable search.suffice for a reasonable search.

Georgia v Randolph (2006)

Do NOT search my computer!

Defendant NOT Physically Present

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Facts:– Valid warrant to search H’s work computer,

found child porn;

– Asked for his consent to search home computer; he refused;

U.S. v Hudspeth(8th Cir. 2008)

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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?Valid?

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

19

Totality of Circumstances:

•• Wife had joint access/control; authorized under Wife had joint access/control; authorized under MatlockMatlock

•• told of right to refusetold of right to refuse

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

•• coco--tenant was not present & objecting Unlike in tenant was not present & objecting Unlike in RandolphRandolph, ,

•• Meets 4/A Meets 4/A rsblnessrsblness requirement;requirement;

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.

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

But…

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

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

forever…

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

20

What if police removed co-tenant?

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Defendant lawfully arrested & placed in squad car

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Defendant lawfully arrested & placed in squad car

• Co-tenant asked for and gives consent to search

Is Co-tenant’s consent valid?

• Lawful arrest

• Reasonable to keep arrestee in back of car Defendant

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

21

•• EffectEffect of officer’s removal of Defendant of officer’s removal of Defendant more important than officer’smore important than officer’s intentintent ……

•• But forBut for act of police, defendant would have act of police, defendant would have been present been present

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

•• when he registered objection from back of when he registered objection from back of squad car, he was deemed to besquad car, he was deemed to be present & present & objectingobjecting under under RandolphRandolph..

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

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

A password is a digital lock.

Welcomeclick on your user name to begin

Marc

Margaret

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

click on your user name to begin

ShaunShaun

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

22

• Conrad and Trulock shared a computer

• Police asked Conrad for consent to search computer

• She told police they each had separate, password protected files on the hard drive

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

password protected files on the hard drive –did not know each other’s passwords

• Police looked at Trulock’s password protected files …

Held:

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

p

Why?• Owner affirmatively intended to exclude

others from his files

• No

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

• One who doesn’t know passwords lacksand

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

23

What is the Effect of a Lock?

1. Manifests owner’s E/P

2. Imposes practical barrier

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

p pto warrantless searches.

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

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

requisite authority?

• 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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

• Totality of Circumstances

• Officer of reasonable caution warranted in thinking wife had authority

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

24

This is o.k.?!

Maybe; maybe not…

B k (i di t ) ’t l t

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

Buckner, (in dicta) - can’t rely on apparent authority while using technology to intentionally avoid discovery of passwords / encryption put in place by user.

• 91 yr old father gave consent to search son’s tcomputer

• 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?

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

locked?

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

25

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

This practice “may well be subject to question” if itis shown that there is a “high incidence ofpassword protection” among home computerusers.

Andrus

Welcomeclick on your user name to begin

Marc

Margaret

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

click on your user name to begin

ShaunShaun

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?

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

of the outside of the computer?

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

26

How do police know if a door is locked?

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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.

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

27

Should 4/A allow govt to ignore computer passwords (locks) b/c govt

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

has technology that can bypass them?

Encase

• Highly configurable by users

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

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

digital locks manually and easily

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

Now you can…

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

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.

Plain View and Consent The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure of Computers and Digital Evidence For Appellate JudgesCopyright ©  2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of  Law

28

Thank you!

Priscilla M. Grantham

NCJRLNCJRL..orgorg

pgadams@olemiss.edu(662) 915-6929