View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended