The Fourth Amendment Aspects of Computer Searches and Seizures

FILE:C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\MYBRIE~1\CLANCY Dec
12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ASPECTS OF COMPUTER

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A PERSPECTIVE AND A
PRIMER
Thomas K. Clancy*
I. Introduction......................................................................195
II. The Nature of Computer Searches: Searches for
Data ................................................................................196
A. Document Searches ..................................................196
B. Views Whether Computer Data are Documents .....197
1. Data Are Forms of Records/Container
Analogy .................................................................197
2. Rejection of the Document Search and
Container Analogy: A ASpecial Approach@ ...........202
3. Discussion of the Premises of the ASpecial
Approach@..............................................................205
a. Should File Names or Types Limit the Scope
of a Search?......................................................206
b. Do Technological Search Programs Make the
File Cabinet Analogy Inadequate? .................210
c. Does the Nature or Amount of Material Make
D ir e c t o r , N a t io n a l C e n t e r fo r J u s t ic e a n d th e R u le o f L a w , a n d V is it in g
P r o f e s s o r , U n iv e r s it y o f M is s is s ip p i S c h o o l o f L a w . I t h a n k D o n M a s o n a n d M a r c
H a r r o ld f o r t h e ir c o m m e n t s o n a n e a r lie r d r a f t o f t h is a r t ic le . T h e N a t io n a l C e n t e r f o r
J u s t ic e a n d t h e R u le o f L a w is s u p p o r t e d b y G r a n t N o . 2 0 0 0 -D D -V X -0 0 3 2 a w a r d e d
b y th e B u r e a u o f J u s t ic e A s s is t a n c e . T h e B u r e a u o f J u s t ic e A s s is t a n c e is a c o m -
p o n e n t o f th e O ffic e o f J u s t ic e P r o g r a m s , w h ic h in c lu d e s th e B u r e a u o f J u s t ic e
S t a t is t ic s , th e N a t io n a l In s t it u t e o f J u s t ic e , th e O ffic e o f J u v e n ile J u s t ic e a n d
D e lin q u e n c y P r e v e n t io n , a n d t h e O ffic e o f V ic t im s o f C r im e . P o in t s o f v ie w o r o p in io n s
in t h is a r t ic le a r e t h o s e o f t h e a u t h o r a n d d o n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e o ffic ia l p o s it io n o f t h e
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t ic e .
193
F IL E : C : \W P 5 1 \7 5 -1 \C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M
1 9 4 M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [ V o l. 7 5
Computers Different From Other

Containers?......................................................216
d. Limitations Based on Search Execution
Procedures in Warrants ..................................218
III. Selected Fourth Amendment Applicability Issues .........220
A. Expectation of Privacy Analysis ...............................220
1. In General.............................................................220
2. The Location of the ComputerCIn General .......221
3. Data on Work ComputersCGovernmental
Employer..............................................................222
4. Data on Work ComputersCPrivate Employer ...224
5. Information Obtained from Third Parties .........225
6. Joint Users; Password Protected Files ..............227
B. Private Searches and Seizures .......................................228
1. In General...........................................................228
2. Government Agents............................................228
3. Replication and AContext@ Issues .......................233
IV. Selected Satisfaction Issues .........................................244
A. Probable Cause ........................................................244
B. Consent ....................................................................253
1. In General...........................................................253
2. Scope of Consent.................................................254
3. Third Party Consent...........................................256
C. Particularity Claims ................................................258
1. In General...........................................................258
2. Varieties of Computer Searches.........................259
a. Searches for Computer Equipment..............260
b. Searches for Data .........................................261
D. Plain View.................................................................262
E. Execution Issues .......................................................264
1. On-site/Off-site Searches; Intermingled
Documents ...........................................................264
2. Use of Experts .....................................................269
3. Deleted Files ........................................................269
V. Conclusion .......................................................................271
FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM
2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 195
I. INTRODUCTION
This article is called a Aprimer@ because it outlines the

application of Fourth Amendment principles to the search and
seizure of computers and the digital information that is stored
in them. It does not purport to address every Fourth Amend-
ment issue that may arise in the computer context because, for
many issues, the mere fact that a computer is involved does
not change the analysis. Instead, it focuses on situations that
are influenced by the fact that the object to be searched and
seized is a computer or the data stored on it. Like a traditional
primer, this article reports how courts have addressed Fourth
Amendment applicability and satisfaction issues in the
computer context.
A primer is generally thought of as not espousing a point

of view. This article, however, departs from that role in two
important respects. First, in discussing the nature of computer
and digital evidence searches and seizures, it rejects the view
that those intrusions require a Aspecial approach,@ that is, that
unique Fourth Amendment rules are needed to regulate them;
instead, this article adopts the view that computers are con-
tainers and the data they contain are mere forms of docu-
ments. This is to say that the principles applicable to docu-
ment searches have equal application to electronic data
searches. Second, it rejects expansion of the private search
doctrine, used by some courts, which permits government
agents to open data files that had not been opened during a
preceding private party search and still not be a search within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment based on the theory
that the Acontext@ in which the file was found negated any
reasonable expectation of privacy. Underlying both of these
points of view is the perspective that a computer is a container
of containers of documents, that is, each individual file is a
separate containerBjust like each manila file in a filing cabinet
is a containerBthat requires a separate opening to determine
what is inside. This is to say that the mere fact that an item to
be searched or seized is electronic evidence does not funda-
mentally change the Fourth Amendment analytical structure
that governs.
II. THE NATURE OF COMPUTER SEARCHES:

SEARCHES FOR DATA
There are two principal approaches to searches involving

electronic data stored on computers. One view asserts that a
computer is a form of a container and that the data in elec-
tronic storage are mere forms of documents. A second view
maintains that searches for data require a Aspecial approach,@
requiring unique procedures and detailed justifications. This
article concludes that the first view is correct: computers are
containers. As with all containers, they have the ability to hold
physical evidence, including such items as wires, microchips,

and hard drives. They also contain electronic evidence, that is,
a series of digitally stored 0s and 1s that, when combined with
a computer program, yield such items as images, words, and
spreadsheets. Accordingly, the traditional standards of the
Fourth Amendment regulate obtaining the evidence in
containers that happen to be computers.
A. Document Searches
In Andresen v. Maryland,1 the Supreme Court outlined the

broad parameters of a permissible records search. In up-
holding the search of an office for documents that sought evi-
dence of the crime of false pretenses by an attorney involved in
real estate settlement activity, the Court asserted:
U n d e r in v e s t ig a t io n w a s a c o m p le x r e a l e s t a t e s c h e m e
w h o s e e x is t e n c e c o u ld b e p r o v e d o n ly b y p ie c in g t o g e t h e r
m a n y b it s o f e v id e n c e . L ik e a jig s a w p u z z le , t h e w h o le
Ap i c t u r e @ o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s f a l s e - p r e t e n s e s c h e m e . . . c o u l d b e
s h o w n o n ly b y p la c in g in t h e p r o p e r p la c e t h e m a n y p ie c e s o f
e v id e n c e t h a t , t a k e n s in g ly , w o u ld s h o w c o m p a r a t iv e ly lit t le .
T h e c o m p le x it y o f a n ille g a l s c h e m e m a y n o t b e u s e d a s a
s h ie ld t o a v o id d e t e c t io n w h e n t h e S t a t e h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d
p r o b a b le c a u s e t o b e lie v e t h a t a c r im e h a s b e e n c o m m it t e d
a n d p r o b a b le c a u s e t o b e lie v e t h a t e v id e n c e o f t h is c r im e is
in t h e s u s p e c t 's p o s s e s s io n .
Although authorizing a broad document search, the Court ob-

served:
W e r e c o g n iz e th a t th e r e a r e g r a v e d a n g e r s in h e r e n t in
e x e c u t in g a w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g a s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f a
p e r s o n 's p a p e r s th a t a r e n o t n e c e s s a r ily p r e s e n t in
e x e c u t in g a w a r r a n t to s e a r c h fo r p h y s ic a l o b je c t s w h o s e
r e le v a n c e is m o r e e a s ily a s c e r t a in a b le . In s e a r c h e s fo r
1
4 2 7 U .S . 4 6 3 , 4 7 9 -8 0 (1 9 7 6 ).
2
Id . a t 4 8 0 n .1 0 .
p a p e r s , it is c e r t a in t h a t s o m e in n o c u o u s d o c u m e n t s w ill b e
e x a m in e d , a t le a s t c u r s o r ily , in o r d e r t o d e t e r m in e w h e t h e r
t h e y a r e , in f a c t , a m o n g t h o s e p a p e r s a u t h o r iz e d t o b e
s e iz e d . S im ila r d a n g e r s , o f c o u r s e , a r e p r e s e n t in e x e c u t in g
a w a r r a n t f o r t h e As e i z u r e @ o f t e le p h o n e c o n v e r s a t io n s . I n
b o t h k in d s o f s e a r c h e s , r e s p o n s ib le o f f ic ia ls , in c lu d in g
ju d ic ia l o ffic ia ls , m u s t t a k e c a r e to a s s u r e th a t th e y a r e
c o n d u c t e d in a m a n n e r t h a t m in im iz e s u n w a r r a n t e d in t r u -
s io n s u p o n p r iv a c y . 3
Several of the themes articulated by Andresen have been

applied by lower courts to searches of computers for data. Those
considerations include the complexity of the crime, whether
innocuous files can be examined, and minimization procedures
to reduce the intrusion upon the individual's protected inter-
ests. Antecedent to those themes, however, is the debate
whether Andresen's framework for document searches is
applicable to computer searches.
3
Id . a t 4 8 2 n .1 1 .
B. Views Whether Computer Data Are Documents
1. Data are Forms of Records/Container Analogy
Many courts view data in computer storage as a form of a

document. Hence, a warrant that authorizes a search for Awrit-
ings@ or Arecords@ permits a search of computer files.4 This is to
say that the government need not know the exact Aform that
records may take.@5 Indeed, this view asserts that there is Ano
principled distinction between records kept electronically and
those in paper form@6 and, hence, there is Ano justification for
favoring those who are capable of storing their records on com-
puter over those who keep hard copies of their records.@7 In both
instances, consistent with Andresen, Ainnocuous documents may
be scanned to ascertain their relevancy@8 in Arecognition of `the
reality that few people keep documents of their criminal
transactions in a folder marked `[crime] records.'@9
4
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 1 (D . V t. 1 9 9 8 ) (w a r -
r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e a r c h fo r Ar e c o r d s @ p e r m i t t e d s e a r c h o f Ac o m p u t e r s , d i s k s , a n d
s i m i l a r p r o p e r t y @) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M u s s o n , 6 5 0 F . S u p p . 5 2 5 , 5 3 1 ( D . C o lo . 1 9 8 6 )
( s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r d is k e t t e s a p p r o v e d u n d e r a w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g t h e s e iz u r e o f
Aa n y r e c o r d s o r w r it in g s o f w h a ts o e v e r n a tu r e s h o w in g a n y b u s in e s s o r fin a n c ia l
t r a n s a c t i o n s @) ; F r a s i e r v . S t a t e , 7 9 4 N .E .2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 4 , 4 6 0 (In d . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
(w a r r a n t th a t a u t h o r iz e d s e a r c h o f An o t e s a n d o r r e c o r d s @ o f m a r iju a n a s a le s
p e r m it t e d p o lic e t o e x a m in e c o m p u t e r file s ) ; P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 3 ( C o lo .
2 0 0 1 ) (w h e n w a r r a n t a u t h o r i z e d s e i z u r e o f Aw r i t t e n a n d p r i n t e d m a t e r ia l@ in d ic a t in g
a n in t e n t t o d o p h y s ic a l h a r m t o a p e r s o n o r b u ild in g p u r s u a n t t o a n in v e s t ig a t io n o f a
c o n s p ir a c y to m u r d e r a n d u s e e x p lo s iv e s a g a in s t a f a c ilit y , s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r s
p e r m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e Ar e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y t o s e r v e a s ` c o n t a i n e r s ' f o r w r i t i n g s ,
o r th e f u n c t io n a l e q u iv a le n t o f ` w r it t e n o r p r in t e d m a t e r i a l ' @) ; P e o p l e v . L o o r i e , 6 3 0
N .Y .S .2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 6 ( C o u n t y C t . 1 9 9 5 ) ( w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e a r c h fo r Ar e c o r d s @
p e r m it t e d s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r file s ) ; c f . U n it e d S t a t e s v . T r iu m p h C a p it a l G r o u p , I n c . ,
2 1 1 F .R .D . 3 1 (D . C o n n . 2 0 0 2 ) (w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e a r c h fo r Af i l e r e c o r d s @
Courts adopting this view have often analogized computers to

filing cabinets or to containers:
[ T h e p o lic e ] m a y s e a r c h t h e lo c a t io n a u t h o r iz e d b y t h e w a r -
r a n t , in c lu d in g a n y c o n t a in e r s a t t h a t lo c a t io n t h a t a r e r e a -
s o n a b ly lik e ly t o c o n t a in it e m s d e s c r ib e d in t h e w a r r a n t . . . .
T h is c o n t a in e r r a t io n a le is e q u a lly a p p lic a b le t o n o n t r a d it io n -
a l , t e c h n o l o g i c a l Ac o n t a i n e r s @ t h a t a r e r e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y t o
h o ld in f o r m a t io n in le s s t a n g ib le f o r m s . S im ila r ly a w a r r a n t
c a n n o t b e e x p e c t e d t o a n t ic ip a t e e v e r y f o r m a n it e m o r r e -
p o s it o r y o f in f o r m a t io n m a y t a k e , a n d t h e r e f o r e c o u r t s h a v e
a f f i r m e d t h e s e iz u r e o f t h in g s t h a t a r e s im ila r t o , o r t h e
Af u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t @ o f , i t e m s e n u m e r a t e d i n a w a r r a n t , a s
w e ll a s c o n t a in e r s in w h ic h t h e y a r e r e a s o n a b ly lik e ly t o b e
fo u n d .1 0
Following this view, computers have been said to be Areason-

ably likely to serve as `containers' for writings, or the functional
in c lu d e d te x t, re m n a n ts , a n d fr a g m e n ts o f d e le t e d file s ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . H a r d in g ,
2 7 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 2 5 (S .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 3 ) (b e c a u s e p h o to g r a p h s m a y b e ta k e n b y
d ig it a l o r film c a m e r a s a n d c a n b e s c a n n e d if in it ia lly c a p tu r e d b y f ilm , a w a r r a n t
a u t h o r iz in g th e p o lic e to s e a r c h fo r Ap h o t o g r a p h s @ a l l o w e d a g e n ts to o p e n a n d
in s p e c t g r a p h ic a l im a g e file s o n a z ip d is k ) .
5
U n it e d S t a t e s v . G a w r y s ia k , 9 7 2 F . S u p p . 8 5 3 , 8 6 1 ( D . N . J . 1 9 9 7 ) ( a p p r o v in g
o f w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h b u s in e s s o ffic e f o r e v id e n c e o f f r a u d ) , a ff'd , 1 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 (3 d
C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); a c c o r d U n it e d S ta te s v . H e n s o n , 8 4 8 F .2 d 1 3 7 4 , 1 3 8 3 (6 th C ir .
1 9 8 8 ).
6
U n it e d S t a t e s v . L ie v e r t z , 2 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 6 3 (S .D . In d . 2 0 0 2 ).
7
U n it e d S t a t e s v . H u n t e r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 4 (D . V t. 1 9 9 8 ).
8
Id . a t 5 8 2 ; a c c o r d U n it e d S t a t e s v . G r a y , 7 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 8 (E .D . V a .
1 9 9 9 ).
9
U n it e d S ta te s v . H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 2 ( D . V t . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t in g
U n it e d S t a t e s v . R ile y , 9 0 6 F .2 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) ; a c c o r d U n it e d S t a t e s v .
M a a li M . , 3 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 6 5 ( M . D . F la . 2 0 0 4 ) .
1 0
P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 3 ( C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c it a t io n s o m it t e d ) ;
s e e a ls o U n it e d S t a t e s v . A l-M a r r i, 2 3 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 3 5 , 5 4 1 (S .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 2 ) (a
c o m p u t e r is a f o r m o f a c o n t a in e r ) ; P e o p le v . L o o r ie , 6 3 0 N .Y .S .2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 6 (C o u n -
t y C t . 1 9 9 5 ) ( s a m e ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . B a r t h , 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 6 (W .D . T e x .
1 9 9 8 ) (s a m e ).
equivalent of `written or printed material.'@11 This is despite the

recognition that computer file searches present Aa heightened
degree@ of intermingling of relevant and irrelevant material:
A[t]oday computers and computer disks store most of the records
and data belonging to businesses and attorneys.@12
Accepting this view does not mean that wholesale searches of
data on computers are permitted.13 Instead, the courts look to
traditional means to limit the scope of document searches, such
as the nature of the criminal activity alleged14 or the nature of
1 1
P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 3 ( C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ) .
1 2
U n it e d S ta te s v . H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 1 , 5 8 3 (D . V t.
1 9 9 8 ).
1 3
T h e Ac o n t a i n e r , @ h o w e v e r , m u s t b e p r o p e r l y d e f i n e d . S e e i n f r a n o t e s
1 3 9 -8 2 a n d a c c o m p a n y in g t e x t .
1 4
S e e G u e s t v . L e is , 2 5 5 F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( w a r r a n t s
s e e k in g s u b s c r ib e r in f o r m a t io n in o b s c e n it y in v e s t ig a t io n r e q u ir in g th a t
c o m m u n ic a t io n s a n d c o m p u te r r e c o r d s p e r t a in to th e lis t e d o ffe n s e s w e r e a s p a r -
t ic u la r a s c ir c u m s t a n c e s p e r m it t e d ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . K o w , 5 8 F .3 d 4 2 3 , 4 2 7 (9 th
C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( o n e w a y to m a k e w a r r a n t p a r t ic u la r is to s p e c ify s u s p e c te d c r im in a l
c o n d u c t b e in g in v e s t ig a t e d b u t w a r r a n t in v a lid w h e n it a u t h o r iz e d At h e s e iz u r e o f
v ir t u a lly e v e r y d o c u m e n t a n d c o m p u t e r file @ w it h o u t in d ic a t in g h o w it e m s r e la t e d to
s u s p e c t e d c r im e ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . G e o r g e , 9 7 5 F .2 d 7 2 , 7 6 (2 d C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( AM e r e
r e fe r e n c e to ` e v id e n c e ' o f a v io la t io n o f a b r o a d c r im in a l s t a t u t e o r g e n e r a l c r im in a l
a c t iv it y p r o v id e s n o r e a d ily a s c e r t a in a b le g u id e lin e s fo r th e e x e c u t in g o f f ic e r s a s to
w h a t it e m s to s e i z e . @) ; L a f a y e t t e A c a d e m y , In c . v . U n it e d S ta te s , 6 1 0 F .2 d 1 , 5 -6
(5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ( w a r r a n t t h a t r e s u lt e d in r e m o v a l o f f o u r o r fiv e t r u c k lo a d s o f d o c u -
m e n ts a n d c o m p u t e r -r e la t e d m a t e r ia ls v io la t e d th e p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t w h e n ,
in t e r a lia , i t d id n o t s p e c ify t y p e o f f r a u d u n d e r in v e s t ig a t io n ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . H u n t e r ,
1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 2 -8 3 ( D . V t . 1 9 9 8 ) ( d is c u s s in g lim it a t io n s o n s c o p e o f
s e a r c h in v o lv in g m o n e y la u n d e r in g s c h e m e ) ; In r e S e a r c h W a r r a n t fo r K -S p o r t s
Im p o r t s , In c . , 1 6 3 F .R .D . 5 9 4 , 5 9 7 -9 8 ( C . D . C a l . 1 9 9 5 ) ( w a r r a n t f o r Aa l l c o m p u t e r
r e c o r d s a n d d a t a , @ w it h o u t lim it in g t o c r im e u n d e r in v e s t ig a t io n , v io la t e d p a r t ic u la r it y
r e q u ir e m e n t ) ; S t a t e v . A s k h a m , 8 6 P .3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 7 (W a s h . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (w a r r a n t
s u f f ic ie n t ly p a r t ic u la r w h e n it n a m e s c r im e u n d e r in v e s t ig a t io n o r w h e n it d e s c r ib e s in
As o m e d e t a il@ s u s p e c t e d c r im in a l a c t iv it y ; h e n c e , w h e n a c c u s e d s u s p e c te d o f u s in g
c o m p u t e r t o m a k e t h r e a t s a n d f a ls e a c c u s a t io n s a n d w a r r a n t d e t a ils t h e t y p e o f t e x t
file s a n d w e b s it e s t o b e s e a r c h e d t h a t c o u ld h a v e b e e n u s e d t o c o n d u c t t h a t a c t iv it y ,
it w a s s u ffic ie n t ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . L o n g o , 7 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 2 5 , 2 5 1 (W .D .N .Y .
the objects sought.15 For example, searches of computers for

evidence of child pornography and other sexual exploitation of
children make up a shockingly large percentage of the decided
cases; in response to particularity challenges in these cases,
courts focus on the sufficiency of the allegations of criminal con-
duct16 or the description of the objects17 sought.
1 9 9 9 ) ( w a r r a n t t h a t a u t h o r iz e d s e a r c h o f h a r d d r iv e a n d a n y d a ta d is k s fo r At w o
d o c u m e n t s , o n e a p r o m is s o r y n o t e , e n t it le d T G L -0 0 3 , c o n t a in e d w it h in t h e d ir e c t o r y
la b e le d M IS C , a n d a p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t e n t it le d 9 1 1 , c o n t a in e d in th e d ir e c t o r y
e n t it le d IM F @ s p e c ific a lly d e s c r ib e d a r e a t o b e s e a r c h e d ) ; S t a t e v . N u c k o lls , 6 1 7 S o .
2 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 6 ( F la . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ( w a r r a n t s e e k in g r e c o r d s o f u s e d c a r b u s in e s s
c h a r g e d w it h fo r g e r y , o d o m e te r t a m p e r in g , a n d o th e r c r im in a l v io la t io n s s u ffic ie n t
w h e n it a u t h o r iz e d s e iz u r e o f A[ d ] a t a s to r e d o n c o m p u t e r , in c lu d in g , b u t n o t lim it e d
t o , m a g n e t ic m e d ia o r a n y o th e r e le c t r o n ic fo r m , h a r d d is k s , c a s s e t t e s , d is k e t t e s ,
p h o to o p t ic a l d e v ic e s a n d file s e r v e r m a g n e t ic b a c k u p t a p e s @ b e c a u s e it le f t n o t h in g
t o d is c r e t io n o f o ffic e r s e x e c u t in g w a r r a n t ) .
1 5
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . T h o r n , 3 7 5 F .3 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 4 -8 5 ( 8 t h C ir . 2 0 0 4 )
( w a r r a n t t h a t a u t h o r iz e d s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f e le c t r o n ic s t o r a g e m e d ia c o n t a in in g
im a g e s o f m in o r s e n g a g e d in s e x u a l a c t s a llo w e d e x a m in a t io n o f c o n t e n t s o f v a r io u s
c o m p u t e r -r e la t e d m e d ia ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . W o n g , 3 3 4 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 7 -3 8 (9 th C ir .
2 0 0 3 ) ( w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r t o Ao b t a i n d a t a a s it r e la t e s t o t h is
c a s e @ s u ffic ie n t ly p a r t ic u la r w h e n c o m b in e d w it h w a r r a n t 's lis t o f i t e m s s o u g h t in
h o u s e ); S ta te v . O n e P io n e e r C D -R O M C h a n g e r, 8 9 1 P .2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 4 ( O k la . C t . A p p .
1 9 9 5 ) ( s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r s y s t e m p e r m is s ib le u n d e r w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e iz u r e o f
Ae q u i p m e n t . . . p e r t a i n i n g to th e d is t r ib u t io n o r d is p la y o f p o r n o g r a p h ic m a t e r ia l in
v io la t io n o f s ta te o b s c e n i t y l a w s @) ; S c h a l k v . S ta te , 8 2 3 S .W .2 d 6 3 3 , 6 4 4 (T e x .
C r im . 1 9 9 1 ) (in t h e f t o f t r a d e s e c r e t s p r o s e c u t i o n , Am a g n e t i c t a p e s @ t h a t c o n t a i n e d
o r w e r e r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d t o c o n t a in s t o le n d a t a a n d / o r file s s u f f ic ie n t ly d e s c r ib e d
it e m s t o b e s e iz e d ) .
1 6
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . M e e k , 3 6 6 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 4 -1 5 ( 9 t h C ir . 2 0 0 4 )
(w a r r a n t s u ffic ie n t to s e a r c h fo r c r im e in v o lv in g u s e o f In t e r n e t w h e n it lis t e d
n u m e r o u s it e m s r e la t in g to s e d u c t io n a n d s e x u a l e x p lo it a t io n o f c h ild r e n : s e x u a lly
e x p lic it m a t e r ia l o r p a r a p h e r n a lia u s e d to lo w e r in h ib it io n o f c h ild r e n , s e x to y s ,
p h o to g r a p h y e q u ip m e n t , c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y, a s w e ll a s m a t e r ia l r e la t e d to p a s t
m o le s t a t io n s u c h a s p h o to g r a p h s , a d d r e s s le d g e r s in c lu d in g n a m e s o f o th e r
p e d o p h ile s , jo u r n a ls o f s e x u a l e n c o u n te r s w it h c h ild r e n , c o m p u t e r e q u ip m e n t , in -
f o r m a t io n o n d ig it a l a n d m a g n e t ic s to r a g e d e v ic e s , c o m p u t e r p r in t o u t s , c o m p u t e r
s o ftw a r e a n d m a n u a ls , a n d d o c u m e n t a t io n r e g a r d in g c o m p u te r u s e ) ; U n it e d S ta te s
v. H a y, 2 3 1 F .3 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 7 ( 9 t h C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( u p h o ld in g v a lid it y o f s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r
e q u ip m e n t a n d file s b e c a u s e w a r r a n t lim it e d s e a r c h t o e v id e n c e o f c r im e s in v o lv in g
s e x u a l e x p lo it a t io n o f c h ild r e n ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . G le ic h , 2 9 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 2 ,
1 0 8 8 ( D . N . D . 2 0 0 3 ) ( w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r fo r p h o to g r a p h s ,
p ic t u r e s , v is u a l r e p r e s e n t a t io n s , o r v id e o s t h a t in c lu d e d s e x u a l c o n d u c t b y m in o r , a s
d e fin e d b y N o r t h D a k o t a s t a t u t e , m e t p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t ) , a ff'd , 3 9 7 F .3 d 6 0 8
(8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . H a ll, 1 4 2 F .3 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 6 -9 7 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )
( w h e n it e m s lis t e d in w a r r a n t q u a lifie d b y p h r a s e s t h a t it e m s s o u g h t w e r e r e la t e d t o
c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y , p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t s a t is fie d ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . C lo u g h , 2 4 6
F . S u p p . 2 d 8 4 , 8 7 -8 8 ( D . M e . 2 0 0 3 ) ( w a r r a n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e a u -
t h o r iz in g s e a r c h o f At e x t d o c u m e n t s @ a n d Ad i g i t a l i m a g e s @ v i o l a t e d p a r t ic u la r it y r e -
q u ir e m e n t w h e n th e r e w e r e An o r e s t r ic t io n s o n th e s e a r c h , n o r e fe r e n c e s to s ta t-
u t e s , a n d n o r e f e r e n c e s t o c r i m e s o r i l l e g a l i t y @) ; S t a t e v . W ib le , 5 1 P .3 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 7
(W a s h A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( w a r r a n t p a r t ic u la r w h e n it lim it e d s e a r c h t o im a g e s o f c h ild r e n
e n g a g e d in s e x u a lly e x p lic it a c t iv it y a s d e fin e d b y c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s t a t u t e ) ; c f . U n it e d
S ta te s v . M a x w e ll, 4 5 M .J . 4 0 6 , 4 2 0 ( C . A . A . F . 1 9 9 6 ) ( r e je c t in g c h a lle n g e to
w a r r a n t t h a t in c lu d e d p e r s o n s w h o c o u ld h a v e u n k n o w in g ly r e c e iv e d c h ild p o r n o g -
r a p h y in t h e ir e m a il m a ilb o x e s b e c a u s e to n a r r o w th e fie ld to o n ly t h o s e w h o h a d
k n o w in g ly r e c e iv e d im a g e s w o u ld h a v e r e q u ir e d a d v a n c e s e a r c h o f m a ilb o x e s to
a s c e r t a in if file s h a d b e e n o p e n e d ) .
1 7
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . G le ic h , 3 9 7 F .3 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 2 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )
( w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e a r c h o f h o m e a n d p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r f o r Ap h o t o g r a p h s , p i c -
t u r e s , v is u a l r e p r e s e n t a t io n s o r v id e o s in a n y fo r m t h a t in c lu d e s e x u a l c o n d u c t b y a
m in o r @ p e r m it t e d s e a r c h o f a ll t h r e e c o m p u t e r s in h o u s e ) ; T h o r n , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 6 8 5
( w a r r a n t t h a t a u t h o r iz e d s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f e le c t r o n ic s t o r a g e m e d ia c o n t a in in g
im a g e s o f m in o r s e n g a g e d in s e x u a l a c ts s u ffic e d to p r o v id e a u t h o r it y t o e x a m in e
c o n te n ts o f v a r io u s c o m p u t e r -r e la t e d m e d ia ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . C a m p o s , 2 2 1 F .3 d
1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 7 -4 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( w a r r a n t p a r t ic u la r w h e n it a u t h o r iz e d , in t e r a lia ,
s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t th a t m a y b e u s e d to d e p ic t o r d is t r ib u t e c h ild
p o r n o g r a p h y ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 5 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) , c e r t .
d e n ie d , 5 2 7 U .S . 1 0 1 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( u p h o l d i n g w a r r a n t i s s u e d f o r A[ a ] n y a n d a l l c o m p u t e r
s o ftw a r e a n d h a r d w a r e , . . . c o m p u te r d is k s , d is k d r iv e s @ in h o u s e o f w o m a n s u s -
p e c te d o f s e n d in g a n d r e c e iv in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o v e r In t e r n e t ) ; D a v is v . G r a c e y ,
1 1 1 F .3 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 9 (1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( Ae q u i p m e n t . . . p e r t a i n i n g to th e d is t r i-
b u t io n o r d is p la y o f p o r n o g r a p h ic m a t e r ia l@ w a s s u ffic ie n t ly p r e c is e t o lim it s e a r c h t o
c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t c o n n e c t e d w it h t h a t c r im in a l a c t iv it y ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . A lb e r t ,
1 9 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 5 -7 6 (D . M a s s . 2 0 0 2 ) (w a r r a n t p a r t ic u la r w h e n it
a u t h o r iz e d s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r , d is k s , s o f t w a r e , a n d s to r a g e d e v ic e s
w h e n th e r e w a s p r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e t h a t t h e c o m p u te r c o n t a in e d m o r e th a n
1 0 0 0 im a g e s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y, g iv e n th a t th e As e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f th e
c o m p u t e r a n d it s r e la t e d s t o r a g e e q u ip m e n t w a s t h e o n ly p r a c t ic a l w a y t o o b t a in t h e
2. Rejection of the Document Search and Container Analogy: A

ASpecial Approach@
Some authorities reject the container analogy and view

searches for data on a computer much differently than paper
document searches.18 The leading case, United States v. Carey,19
espouses the view that law enforcement officers must take a
Aspecial approach@20 to the search of data contained on
computers and that the Afile cabinet analogy may be inade-
quate.@21 This position is premised on the fact that Aelectronic
storage is likely to contain a greater quantity and variety of
information than any previous storage method.@22 As one judge
has argued:
i m a g e s @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . A lle n , 5 3 M .J . 4 0 2 , 4 0 7 -0 8 (C .A .A .F . 2 0 0 0 ) (w a r r a n t
p a r t ic u la r w h e n it a u t h o r iz e d s e a r c h f o r c o m p u t e r file s r e la t in g t o n u d e p h o t o g r a p h s
o f ju v e n ile s , I n t e r n e t lo c a t io n s o f s u c h m a t e r ia l, o r lis t s o f s u c h file s ) ; S t a t e v . W ib le ,
5 1 P .3 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 6 -3 7 (W a s h . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( w a r r a n t f o r c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s a t is fie s
p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t if it lim it s s e iz a b le it e m s b y s p e c ify in g typ e o f m a t e r ia l t h a t
q u a lifie s a s c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y); S ta te v . M a x w e ll, 8 2 5 A .2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 4 (N .J .
S u p e r. 2 0 0 1 ) (in c a s e in v o lv in g u s e o f t e le p h o n e to c a ll c h ild v ic t im s o f s e x u a l
a s s a u l t , w a r r a n t t h a t a u t h o r i z e d s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r f o r Ac o m p u t e r a d d r e s s b o o k s @
v a lid ) ; S t a t e v . P a ts c h e c k , 6 P .3 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 0 -0 1 (N .M . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (in p r o s e c u t io n
f o r s e x u a l o f f e n s e s a g a in s t c h ild r e n , w a r r a n t t h a t s p e c ifie d c o m p u t e r t o b e s e a r c h e d
fo r Ap o r n o g r a p h i c m o v ie s @ v a lid ) ; S t a t e v . L e h m a n , 7 3 6 A .2 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 0 -6 1 (M e .
1 9 9 9 ) (w a r r a n t n o t o v e r b r o a d w h e n it a u t h o r iz e d s e iz u r e o f a ll c o m p u t e r -r e la t e d
e q u ip m e n t in s u s p e c t 's h o u s e w h e n p o lic e k n e w o n ly t h a t t h e im a g e s o f s e x u a lly
e x p lo it e d g ir ls w e r e ta k e n b y a d ig it a l c a m e r a a n d d o w n lo a d e d to a c o m p u te r ); c f.
U n it e d S t a t e s v . L a m b , 9 4 5 F . S u p p . 4 4 1 , 4 5 7 -5 9 ( N . D . N . Y . 1 9 9 6 ) ( w a r r a n t s a t is -
fie d p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e s e e k in g s u b s c r ib e r
in f o r m a t io n a n d e le c t r o n ic m a il m e s s a g e s s e n t t o a n d r e c e iv e d b y 7 8 in d iv id u a ls f r o m
In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r w h e n m e s s a g e s w e r e in s t r u m e n t a lit ie s o f c r im e u s e d b y
c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y t r a f fic k e r s t o lo c a t e a n d c o m m u n ic a t e w it h p e r s o n s o f lik e m in d ) .
1 8
S e e R a p h a e l W in ic k , S e a r c h e s a n d S e iz u r e s o f C o m p u te r s a n d
C o m p u te r D a ta , 8 H . J .L . & T E C H . 7 5 , 1 1 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( AA n a n a lo g y b e tw e e n a
c o m p u te r a n d a c o n t a in e r o v e r s im p lifie s a c o m p le x a r e a o f F o u r th A m e n d m e n t
d o c t r in e a n d ig n o r e s t h e r e a l i t i e s o f m a s s i v e m o d e r n c o m p u t e r s t o r a g e . @) ; s e e a l s o
S u s a n W . B r e n n e r & B a r b a r a A . F r e d e r ik s e n , C o m p u t e r S e a r c h e s a n d S e iz u r e s :
A c o m p u t e r is f u n d a m e n t a lly d iffe r e n t f r o m a w r it in g , o r a
c o n t a in e r o f w r it in g s , b e c a u s e o f i t s c a p a c it y t o h o ld a v a s t
a r r a y o f in f o r m a t io n in m a n y d if f e r e n t f o r m s , t o s o r t ,
p r o c e s s , a n d t r a n s f e r in f o r m a t io n in a d a t a b a s e , t o p r o v id e
a m e a n s f o r c o m m u n ic a t io n v ia e -m a il, a n d t o c o n n e c t a n y
g iv e n u s e r t o t h e in t e r n e t . A c o m p u t e r m a y b e c o m p r is e d o f
a w id e v a r ie t y o f p e r s o n a l in f o r m a t io n , in c lu d in g b u t n o t
lim it e d t o w o r d p r o c e s s in g d o c u m e n t s , f in a n c ia l r e c o r d s ,
b u s in e s s r e c o r d s , e le c t r o n ic m a il, in t e r n e t a c c e s s p a t h s ,
a n d p r e v io u s ly d e le t e d m a t e r ia ls . B e c a u s e o f th e s e
d iffe r e n c e s , t h e s e iz u r e o f a c o m p u t e r r a is e s m a n y is s u e s
b e y o n d t h o s e t h a t m ig h t p e r t a in t o m e r e w r it in g s . . . .
A Aw r i t i n g @ i s s i m p l y n o t p a r t i c u l a r e n o u g h t o w a r r a n t a r e a -
s o n a b le p e r s o n t o c o n c lu d e t h a t it in c lu d e s a c o m p u t e r b e -
c a u s e a w r it in g a n d a c o m p u t e r a r e t w o f u n d a m e n t a lly
d iffe r e n t t h in g s , b o t h in d e g r e e a n d in k in d . . . . M o r e o v e r ,
F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t a n a ly s is r e g a r d in g t h e s e a r c h a n d
s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r s m u s t b e a p p r o a c h e d c a u t io u s ly a n d
n a r r o w ly b e c a u s e o f th e im p o r t a n t p r iv a c y c o n c e r n s
in h e r e n t in t h e n a t u r e o f c o m p u t e r s , a n d b e c a u s e t h e
t e c h n o lo g y in t h is a r e a is r a p id ly g r o w in g a n d c h a n g in g . 2 3
S o m e U n r e s o lv e d Is s u e s , 8 M IC H . T E L E C O M M . T E C H . L . R E V . 3 9 , 6 0 - 6 3 , 8 1 - 8 2 (2 0 0 2 )
( s e t t in g fo r th s o m e o f th e d iffe r e n c e s b e tw e e n s e a r c h e s o f Ap a p e r d o c u m e n ts a n d
c o m p u t e r -g e n e r a t e d e v id e n c e @ a n d m a in t a in in g th a t c o u r ts s h o u ld im p o s e r e -
s t r ic t io n s o n c o m p u te r s e a r c h e s s u c h a s lim it in g th e s e a r c h b y f ile typ e s , b y
r e q u ir in g a s e c o n d w a r r a n t f o r in t e r m in g le d file s , a n d b y im p o s in g t im e fr a m e s fo r
c o n d u c t in g t h e s e a r c h ) .
1 9
1 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 ( 1 0 t h C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) .
2 0
Id . a t 1 2 7 5 n . 7 ; s e e a ls o P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 6 0 ( C o lo .
2 0 0 1 ) ( M a r t i n e z , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( AB e c a u s e c o m p u t e r s p r o c e s s p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
a n d e f f e c t s , t h e y r e q u ir e h e ig h t e n e d p r o t e c t io n u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t a g a in s t
u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s o r s e i z u r e s . @) .
2 1
C a r e y, 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 5 .
2 2
W in ic k , s u p r a n o te 1 8 , a t 1 0 5 ; s e e a ls o In r e S e a r c h o f 3 8 1 7 W .
W e s t E n d , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 5 3 , 9 5 8 -5 9 ( N . D . Ill. 2 0 0 4 ) ( a s s e r t in g t h a t s e a r c h e s
o f c o m p u te r s r e q u ir e Ac a r e f u l s c r u t i n y o f th e p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t @ b e c a u s e ,
i n t e r a l i a , o f t h e Ae x t r a o r d i n a r y v o l u m e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t m a y b e s t o r e d @) .
2 3
P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 6 2 -6 5 ( C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ) ( M a r t in e z , J . ,
Other arguments that searches of computers are different

include the assertion that computers Apresent the tools to refine
searches in ways that cannot be done with hard copy files.
When confronting a file cabinet full of papers, there may be no
way to determine what to seize without doing some level of
review of everything in the cabinet@; in contrast, computer
technology affords a variety of methods by which the govern-
ment may tailor a search to focus on documents that evidence
the alleged criminal activity.24 Those methods, it has been as-
serted, include limiting searches by date range, doing key word
searches, limiting searches by file type, and Afocusing on certain
software programs.@25
Under this Aspecial approach,@ courts have imposed several
unique requirements: a search warrant seeking to seize com-
puters or computer equipment must specify that it covers such
items and the warrant must Ainclude measures to direct the
subsequent search of a computer.@26 Police officers may also
have to limit the search by Aobserving files types and titles
listed on the directory, doing a key word search for relevant
terms, or reading portions of each file stored in the memory.@27
d is s e n t in g ) .
2 4
In r e S e a r c h o f 3 8 1 7 W . W e s t E n d , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 9 5 9 .
2 5
Id .
2 6
P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 6 4 -6 5 ( C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ) ( M a r t in e z , J . ,
d is s e n t in g ) ; s e e a ls o In r e S e a r c h o f 3 8 1 7 W . W e s t E n d , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 9 5 7
( m a in t a in in g t h a t a n is s u in g m a g is t r a t e h a d a u t h o r it y t o r e q u ir e g o v e r n m e n t t o f o llo w
As e a r c h p r o to c o l th a t a tte m p ts to e n s u r e th a t th e s e a r c h w ill n o t e x c e e d c o n s t it u -
t i o n a l b o u n d s @) .
2 7
U n it e d S ta te s v . C a r e y , 1 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ;
s e e a ls o P e o p le v . C a r r a tu , 7 5 5 N .Y .S .2 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 7 -0 9 (N .Y . S u p . C t. 2 0 0 3 )
( s t a t in g t h a t p o lic e d id o r d id n o t h a v e r ig h t u n d e r w a r r a n t to o p e n c o m p u t e r file
f o ld e r s b a s e d o n n a m e a s s o c ia t e d w it h t h a t f o ld e r ) ; In r e G r a n d J u r y S u b p o e n a D u -
c e s T e c u m D a te d N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 9 3 , 8 4 6 F . S u p p . 1 1 , 1 3 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 4 )
(b a s e d o n g o v e r n m e n t 's c o n c e s s io n , a s s e r t in g th a t k e y w o r d s e a r c h o f in f o r m a t io n
s to r e d o n c o m p u te r w o u ld r e v e a l in f o r m a t io n lik e ly to b e r e le v a n t t o g r a n d ju r y
in v e s t ig a t io n ) ; P e o p le v . G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 6 6 ( C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ) ( M a r t in e z , J . , d is -
s e n t i n g ) ( A[ S ] e a r c h e s m a y b e lim it e d to a v o id s e a r c h in g file s n o t in c lu d e d in th e
To restrict the scope of a search of a computer that contains

intermingled documents, those rejecting the premise that com-
puter searches are just another form of a document search
maintain that merely obtaining a warrant to search for speci-
fied items is insufficient.28 Instead,
[L ]a w e n fo r c e m e n t m u s t e n g a g e in t h e in t e r m e d ia t e s t e p o f
s o r t in g v a r io u s typ e s o f d o c u m e n ts a n d t h e n o n ly s e a r c h t h e
o n e s s p e c ifie d in a w a r r a n t. W h e r e o f f ic e r s c o m e a c r o s s
r e le v a n t d o c u m e n ts s o in t e r m in g le d w it h ir r e le v a n t
d o c u m e n ts th a t th e y c a n n o t f e a s ib ly b e s o r t e d a t t h e s it e ,
th e o ffic e r s m a y s e a l o r h o ld t h e d o c u m e n t s p e n d in g
a p p r o v a l b y a m a g is t r a t e o f th e c o n d it io n s a n d lim it a t io n s o n
a fu r t h e r s e a r c h th r o u g h th e d o c u m e n t s . T h e m a g is t r a t e
s h o u ld t h e n r e q u ir e o ffic e r s to s p e c ify in a w a r r a n t w h ic h
t y p e o f file s a r e s o u g h t.2 9
w a r r a n t b y ` o b s e r v in g file s typ e s a n d t it le s lis t e d in th e d ir e c t o r y , d o in g a k e y w o r d

s e a r c h f o r r e le v a n t t e r m s , o r r e a d in g p o r t io n s o f e a c h file s t o r e d in th e m e m o r y @) ;
W in ic k , s u p r a n o te 1 8 , a t 1 0 7 ( AO n c e o ffic e r s s e iz e la r g e q u a n t it ie s o f c o m p u te r
m e m o r y , t h e y h a v e t h r e e m e t h o d s o f d is t in g u is h in g r e le v a n t f r o m ir r e le v a n t in f o r m a -
t io n . O ffic e r s c a n e it h e r r e a d th r o u g h p o r t io n s o f e a c h file s to r e d in th e m e m o r y ,
c o n d u c t a k e y w o r d s e a r c h o f t h e d a t a s t o r e d o n t h e d is k s , o r p r in t o u t a d ir e c t o r y o f
t h e t i t l e a n d f i l e t y p e f o r e a c h f i l e o n t h e d i s k . @) .
2 8
T h e o r ig in o f t h e in t e r m in g le d d o c u m e n t d o c t r in e c a n b e t r a c e d t o a
n o n -c o m p u t e r c a s e , w h ic h in v o lv e d a la r g e v o lu m e o f m a t e r ia l. S e e U n it e d S ta te s v .
T a m u r a , 6 9 4 F .2 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 5 -9 7 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( g o v e r n m e n t c a n a v o id v io la t in g
F o u r th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t s b y s e a lin g d o c u m e n t s p e n d in g is s u a n c e o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t
d e t a ilin g fu r th e r s e a r c h ); s e e a ls o U n it e d S t a t e s v . S h illin g , 8 2 6 F .2 d 1 3 6 5 , 1 3 6 9
( 4 t h C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( r e g a r d in g f ile c a b in e t s , g o v e r n m e n t s h o u ld a d o p t p r o c e d u r e o u t lin e d
in T a m u r a a n d r e q u ir e s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h w a r r a n t). B u t s e e U n it e d S ta te s v . H ill,
3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 1 , 1 0 9 0 ( C . D . C a l. 2 0 0 4 ) ( r e je c t in g T a m u r a a s a p p lic a b le
p r e c e d e n t b e c a u s e w a r r a n t p e r m it t e d s e iz u r e o f a ll s t o r a g e m e d ia ) ; D a v id J .S . Z iff,
N o te , F o u r th A m e n d m e n t L im it a t io n s o n th e E x e c u t io n o f C o m p u te r S e a r c h e s C o n -
d u c te d P u r s u a n t to a W a r r a n t, 1 0 5 C O L U M . L . R E V . 8 4 1 , 8 5 8 -6 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( a r g u in g
in a p p lic a b ilit y o f T a m u r a t o c o m p u t e r s e a r c h e s ) .
2 9
C a r e y, 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 5 (fo o tn o te o m it t e d ) ; a c c o r d U n it e d S ta te s
v. W a ls e r , 2 7 5 F .3 d 9 8 1 , 9 8 6 -8 7 ( 1 0 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . C a m p o s , 2 2 1
F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 8 ( 1 0 t h C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; W in ic k , s u p r a n o t e 1 8 , a t 1 0 5 -0 7 .
3. Discussion of the Premises of the ASpecial Approach@
As this section explains, I believe the Aspecial approach@ is

misguided. It has no foundation in Fourth Amendment juris-
prudence, even by analogy, given its essential postulate that
computer technology is so fundamentally different from any-
thing in the past. This postulate has been articulated to include
several premises. First, technology not only creates a vastly
different system of storage, information, and privacy concerns,
it also affords ways to minimize intrusions. Because such meth-
ods are available, so the reasoning goes, they must be used.
Second, computer abilities are fundamentally different than
anything previously known to humankind, mandating rejection
of the document and container doctrines that the Supreme
Court has articulated to regulate those other types of searches.
Third, because of the other premises, computer searches and
seizures require the courts to create special search execution
rules. Each of these premises and the underlying postulate, I
believe, are flawed. Instead, the proper view is that computer
and electronic data searches are properly governed by tradi-
tional Fourth Amendment rules regulating containers and
document searches.
a. Should File Names or Types Limit the Scope of a Search?
An essential premise of the Aspecial approach@ is that file name

labels or suffixes accurately indicate what the file contains.30 As
one commentator has asserted:
3 0
S e e C a r e y, 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 5 ( AT h i s i s n o t a c a s e i n w h i c h a m b i g u -
o u s ly la b e le d f i l e s w e r e c o n t a in e d in t h e h a r d d r iv e d ir e c t o r y . I t i s n o t a c a s e in w h ic h
t h e o f f i c e r s h a d t o o p e n e a c h f i l e d r a w e r b e f o r e d i s c o v e r i n g i t s c o n t e n t s . @) ; P e o p l e v .
C a r r a tu , 7 5 5 N .Y .S .2 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 7 ( N . Y . S u p . C t . 2 0 0 3 ) ( A[ A ] w a r r a n t a u t h o r i z i n g a
s e a r c h o f th e t e x t file s o f a c o m p u te r fo r d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e p e r t a in in g to a
s p e c ific c r im e w ill n o t a u t h o r iz e a s e a r c h o f im a g e file s c o n t a in in g e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r
c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . @) ; A m y B a r o n - E v a n s , W h e n th e G o v e r n m e n t S e iz e s a n d S e a r c h e s
Y o u r C lie n t 's C o m p u te r , 2 7 C H A M P IO N 1 8 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( AF o r t u n a t e l y , t h e t e c h n i c a l m e a n s
C o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s s t o r e in f o r m a t io n in a w id e v a r ie t y o f
f o r m a t s . F o r e x a m p le , m o s t f in a n c ia l s p r e a d s h e e t s s t o r e
in f o r m a t io n in a c o m p le t e ly d iffe r e n t f o r m a t t h a n d o w o r d
p r o c e s s in g p r o g r a m s . S im ila r ly , a n in v e s t ig a t o r r e a s o n a b ly
f a m ilia r w it h c o m p u t e r s s h o u ld b e a b le t o d is t in g u is h
d a t a b a s e p r o g r a m s , e le c t r o n ic m a il file s , t e le p h o n e lis t s a n d
s t o r e d v is u a l o r a u d io file s f r o m e a c h o th e r . W h e r e a
s e a r c h w a r r a n t s e e k s o n ly fin a n c ia l r e c o r d s , la w
e n f o r c e m e n t o f f ic e r s s h o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d t o s e a r c h
t h r o u g h t e le p h o n e lis t s o r w o r d p r o c e s s in g file s a b s e n t a
s h o w in g o f s o m e r e a s o n t o b e lie v e t h a t t h e s e file s c o n t a in
t h e fin a n c ia l r e c o r d s s o u g h t . 3 1
In Carey, the principal case espousing this Aspecial approach,@

the police had a warrant allowing them to search computer files
for Anames, telephone numbers, ledger receipts, addresses, and
other documentary evidence pertaining to the sale and distribu-
tion of controlled substances.@32 During the course of the search,
Detective Lewis came across files with sexually suggestive
titles and the suffix Ajpg.@33 Upon opening one of those files,
Lewis observed child pornography. He subsequently
downloaded numerous other Ajpg@ files and opened some of
them, revealing additional child pornography. The Ajpg@ files
featured sexually suggestive or obscene names, many including
the word Ateen@ or Ayoung.@34 Lewis testified that, until he
e x is t t o s e a r c h c o m p u te r s fo r p a r t ic u la r in f o r m a t io n w it h o u t r u m m a g in g th r o u g h
p r iv a t e in f o r m a t io n n o t d e s c r ib e d in a w a r r a n t . F o r e x a m p le , in a t y p ic a l w h it e c o lla r
c a s e , r e le v a n t file s c a n b e is o la t e d a n d ir r e le v a n t o n e s a v o id e d th r o u g h k e y w o r d
s e a r c h e s . In a c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e , t h e g o v e r n m e n t c a n s e a r c h f o r p ic t u r e file s
w it h o u t t h e n e e d to l o o k a t a n y t e x t f i l e . @) . C f . C o m m o n w e a l t h v . H i n d s , 7 6 8 N .E .2 d
1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 3 ( M a s s . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s u g g e s t iv e file n a m e s c a n c r e a te p r o b a b le c a u s e to
s e a r c h c o m p u t e r f o r c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) .
3 1
S e e W in ic k , s u p r a n o t e 1 8 , a t 1 0 8 .
3 2
C a r e y, 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 0 .
3 3
Id .
3 4
Id . a t 1 2 7 1 n .3 .
opened each file, he really did not know its contents.35 He

claimed: AI wasn't conducting a search for child pornography,
that happened to be what these turned out to be.@36 Although
the trial court denied the motion without making any findings
of fact, the appellate court reversed, imposing its own view of
the evidence:
[T ]h e c a s e tu r n s u p o n th e fa c t th a t e a c h o f t h e file s c o n t a in -
in g p o r n o g r a p h ic m a t e r ia l w a s la b e l e d AJ P G @ a n d m o s t f e a -
t u r e d a s e x u a lly s u g g e s t iv e t it le . C e r t a in ly a f t e r o p e n in g t h e
fir s t f ile a n d s e e in g a n im a g e o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y , t h e
s e a r c h i n g o f f i c e r w a s a w a r e Ci n a d v a n c e o f o p e n in g t h e r e -
m a i n i n g f i l e s Cw h a t t h e l a b e l m e a n t. W h e n h e o p e n e d th e
s u b s e q u e n t f ile s , h e k n e w h e w a s n o t g o in g t o fin d it e m s
r e la t e d t o d r u g a c t iv it y a s s p e c ifie d in t h e w a r r a n t [ . ] 3 7
Putting aside the appellate court's disregard of its limited role

in fact-finding, there are significant reasons to reject its
position that a search be restricted by file names or file types.
Professional investigators recognize that computer users at-
tempt to conceal criminal evidence by storing it Ain random
order with deceptive file names,@ thus requiring a search of all
the stored data to determine whether it is included in the war-
rant.38 Indeed, others have asserted that Ait is impossible to tell
3 5
Id . a t 1 2 7 1 . L e w is s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t im a g e file s c o u ld c o n t a in
e v id e n c e p e r t in e n t t o a d r u g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s u c h a s p i c t u r e s o f Aa h y d r o p o n ic g r o w t h
s y s te m a n d h o w it 's s e t u p to o p e r a te @ a n d th a t d r u g d e a le r s o fte n o b s c u r e o r
d is g u is e e v i d e n c e o f t h e ir d r u g a c t iv it y . Id . a t 1 2 7 0 n .2 .
3 6
Id . a t 1 2 7 1 .
3 7
Id . a t 1 2 7 4 .
3 8
U n it e d S ta te s v . C a m p o s , 2 2 1 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )
( q u o t in g a ffid a v it ) ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S t a t e s v . M a a li M . , 3 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 6 5
( M . D . F la . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e x p e r t e x p la in e d t h a t h e c o u ld n o t r e ly o n file n a m e s t o d e t e r m in e
w h a t w a s r e s p o n s iv e to w a r r a n t); E O G H A N C A S E Y , D IG IT A L E V ID E N C E A N D C O M P U T E R
C R IM E (2 d e d . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d e s c r ib in g a m e t h o d ic a l d a t a filt e r in g p r o c e s s t h a t in c lu d e s
s e v e r a l d if f e r e n t t o o ls , id . a t 6 3 2 -4 3 , a n d o b s e r v in g t h a t d ig it a l e v id e n c e a n a ly s is
r e q u ir e s e x a m in e r s t o e m p lo y f ilt e r in g p r o c e d u r e s t o fin d p o t e n t ia lly u s e f u l d a t a a n d
t h a t A[ l ] e s s m e t h o d ic a l d a t a r e d u c t io n t e c h n iq u e s , s u c h a s s e a r c h in g fo r s p e c ific
k e y w o r d s o r e x t r a c t in g o n ly c e r t a in file t y p e s , m a y n o t o n ly m is s im p o r t a n t c lu e s b u t
what a computer storage medium contains just by looking at it.

Rather, one has to examine it electronically, using a computer
that is running the appropriate operating system, hardware
and software.@39 As one court has maintained:
[ D e f e n d a n t ] c la im s t h a t t h e s e a r c h s h o u ld h a v e b e e n lim it e d
t o c e r t a in file s t h a t a r e m o r e lik e ly t o b e a s s o c ia t e d w it h
c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y , s u c h a s t h o s e w i t h a A. j p g @ s u f f i x ( w h i c h
u s u a lly id e n t ifie s file s c o n t a in in g im a g e s ) o r t h o s e c o n t a in in g
t h e w o r d As e x @ o r o t h e r k e y w o r d s .
D e f e n d a n t 's p r o p o s e d s e a r c h m e t h o d o lo g y is u n r e a s o n -
a b l e . AC o m p u t e r r e c o r d s a r e e x t r e m e l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o
t a m p e r in g , h id in g , o r d e s t r u c t io n , w h e t h e r d e lib e r a t e o r
in a d v e r t e n t . @ Im a g e s c a n b e h id d e n in a ll m a n n e r o f file s ,
e v e n w o r d p r o c e s s in g d o c u m e n ts a n d s p r e a d s h e e ts .
C r im in a ls w ill d o a ll t h e y c a n t o c o n c e a l c o n t r a b a n d ,
in c lu d in g t h e s im p le e x p e d ie n t o f c h a n g in g t h e n a m e s a n d
e x t e n s io n s o f file s t o d is g u is e t h e ir c o n t e n t f r o m t h e c a s u a l
o b s e r v e r .
F o r c in g p o lic e t o lim it t h e ir s e a r c h e s t o file s t h a t t h e
s u s p e c t h a s la b e le d in a p a r t ic u la r w a y w o u ld b e m u c h lik e
s a y in g p o lic e m a y n o t s e iz e a p la s t ic b a g c o n t a in in g a p o w -
d e r y w h i t e s u b s t a n c e i f i t i s l a b e l e d Af l o u r @ o r At a l c u m p o w -
d e r . @ T h e r e is n o w a y t o k n o w w h a t is in a file w it h o u t e x a m -
in in g it s c o n t e n t s , ju s t a s t h e r e is n o s u r e w a y o f s e p a r a t in g
t a lc u m fr o m c o c a in e e x c e p t b y t e s t in g it . T h e e a s e w it h
w h i c h c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y i m a g e s c a n b e d i s g u i s e d Cw h e t h e r
b y r e n a m in g s e x y t e e n y b o p p e r s x x x . jp g a s
s u n d a y s c h o o lle s s o n . d o c , o r s o m e t h in g m o r e
s o p h i s t i c a t e d Cf o r e c l o s e s d e f e n d a n t 's p r o p o s e d s e a r c h
c a n s t ill le a v e th e e x a m in e r s flo u n d e r in g in a s e a o f s u p e r flu o u s d a t a @, i d . a t 2 3 0 ) ;

M ic h a e l G . N o b le t t , M a r k M . P o llit t , & L a w r e n c e A . P r e s le y , R e c o v e r in g a n d E x a m -
in in g C o m p u t e r F o r e n s ic E v id e n c e , 2 F O R E N S IC S C IE N C E C O M M U N IC A T IO N S 7 (2 0 0 0 ) a t
w w w . f b i.g o v / h p / la b / f s c / b a c k is s u e / o c t 2 0 0 0 / c o m p u t e r . h t m ( o b s e r v in g th a t th e r e
i s An o s u c h t h i n g a s g e n e r i c c o m p u t e r s c i e n c e p r o c e d u r e s @ a n d t h a t Ae v i d e n c e i s l i k e -
ly t o b e s ig n ific a n t ly d iffe r e n t e v e r y t im e a s u b m is s io n is r e c e iv e d b y t h e la b o r a t o r y
a n d w i l l l i k e l y r e q u i r e a n e x a m i n a t i o n p l a n t a i l o r e d t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r e v i d e n c e @) .
3 9
U n it e d S ta te s v . H ill, 3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 1 , 1 0 8 8 (C .D . C a l.
2 0 0 4 ).
4 0
m e t h o d o lo g y .
Similarly, in United States v. Gray,41 the court rejected the

argument that an agent could not search files tagged with the
Ajpg@ suffix, even though none of the materials covered by the
warrant were believed to be pictures. The court reasoned:
W h i l e t h e A. j p g @ s u f f i x g e n e r a l l y d e n o t e s a p i c t u r e f i l e , t h e r e
is n o r e q u ir e m e n t t h a t it d o s o , a n d , a s a r e s u lt , A g e n t
E h u a n c o u l d n o t b e c e r t a i n t h a t f i l e s w i t h t h e A. j p g @ s u f f i x d i d
n o t c o n t a in t h e m a t e r ia ls f o r w h ic h h e w a s a u t h o r iz e d t o
s e a r c h . I n d e e d , A g e n t E h u a n w o u ld h a v e b e e n r e m is s n o t t o
s e a r c h f i l e s w i t h a A. j p g @ s u f f i x s i m p l y b e c a u s e s u c h f i l e s a r e
g e n e r a lly p ic t u r e s file s , a n d h e b e lie v e d t h e N L M d o c u m e n t s
a n d h a c k e r m a t e r ia ls w e r e m o r e lik e ly t o b e t e x t f ile s . H e
k n e w fr o m h is e x p e r ie n c e t h a t c o m p u t e r h a c k e r s o f t e n
in t e n t io n a lly m is la b e l file s , o r a t t e m p t t o b u r y in c r im in a t in g
file s w it h in in n o c u o u s ly n a m e d d ir e c t o r ie s . I n d e e d , in t h e
c o u r s e o f h is s e a r c h o f d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r file s , A g e n t
E h u a n f o u n d s o m e t e x t f ile s m ix e d in w it h p ic t u r e file s . T h is
s e r v e s t o u n d e r s c o r e t h e s o u n d n e s s o f t h e c o n c lu s io n t h a t
A g e n t E h u a n w a s n o t r e q u ir e d t o a c c e p t a s a c c u r a t e a n y file
n a m e o r s u f f ix a n d lim it h is s e a r c h a c c o r d in g ly .
D e f e n d a n t f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t A g e n t E h u a n , h a v in g b e e n
a l e r t e d b y t h e n a m e s o f t h e AT e e n @ a n d AT i n y T e e n @ s u b d i r e c -
t o r ie s , w a s lo o k in g f o r c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w h e n h e o p e n e d
t h e t w o s u b d ir e c t o r ie s . A g e n t E h u a n t e s t ifie d p e r s u a s iv e ly t o
t h e c o n t r a r y ; h e s t a t e d t h a t , w h ile t h e n a m e s o f t h e
s u b d i r e c t o r i e s w e r e s u s p i c i o u s t o h i m , h e o p e n e d t h e AT e e n @
a n d AT i n y T e e n @ s u b d i r e c t o r i e s i n t h e c o u r s e o f a s y s t e m a t i c
s e a r c h o f t h e B B S d ir e c t o r y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , A g e n t E h u a n
d id n o t t a r g e t t h o s e p a r t ic u la r s u b d ir e c t o r ie s b e c a u s e o f
t h e ir n a m e s , a n d , a t a ll t im e s , h e w a s s e a r c h in g f o r t h e
m a t e r ia ls t h a t w e r e t h e s u b je c t o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . 4 2
4 0
Id . a t 1 0 9 0 -9 1 .
4 1
7 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 2 4 (E .D . V a . 1 9 9 9 ).
4 2
Id . a t 5 2 9 -3 0 ; s e e a ls o G u e s t v . L e is , 2 5 5 F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 5 ( 6 t h C ir .
2 0 0 1 ) (a g e n ts c o u ld le g it im a t e ly c h e c k c o n te n ts o f d ir e c t o r ie s to s e e if c o n t e n t s
c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h l a b e l s p l a c e d o n d i r e c t o r i e s ; s u s p e c t s Aw o u l d o t h e r w i s e b e a b l e t o
s h ie ld e v id e n c e fr o m a s e a r c h s im p ly b y ` m is filin g ' it in d ir e c t o r y la b e le d ` e - m a i l ' @) ;
These authorities support the conclusion that Carey's limi-

tations on search authority based on file names or types do not
comport with the ability of computer users to hide data in in-
nocuously labeled files. Instead, the more sound approach,
consistent with Andresen, is that Ainnocuous [computer files]
may be scanned to ascertain their relevancy@43 in Arecognition of
`the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal
transactions in a [computer file] folder marked `[crime] re-
cords.'@44
b. Do Technological Search Programs Make the File Cabinet

Analogy Inadequate?
Another premise of authorities rejecting the file cabinet

analogy is that technological searches can be employed by the
government to scan data held in electronic storage to reliably
sort relevant information from information for which the gov-
ernment does not have probable cause to search. This is a
technical question and not a legal one.
There are a variety of software programs that government
investigators now routinely employ when searching for elec-
tronic evidence.45 It has been recognized that Aautomated
S ta te v . S c h r o e d e r , 6 1 3 N .W .2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 6 (W is . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e je c t in g lim it a t io n s
o n s e a r c h b a s e d o n file n a m e s a n d c o n c lu d in g t h a t , d u r in g s y s t e m a t ic s e a r c h o f a ll
u s e r -c r e a t e d file s in e x e c u t in g s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r e v id e n c e o f o n lin e h a r a s s m e n t a n d
d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t , o p e n in g file c o n t a in in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y in p la in v ie w ) ; U n it e d
S t a t e s v . A b b e ll, 9 6 3 F . S u p p . 1 1 7 8 , 1 2 0 1 ( S . D . F la . 1 9 9 7 ) ( u p h o ld in g s e iz u r e o f
c o m p u te r d is k s d e s p it e fa c t th a t th e y d id n o t c o n t a in r e s p o n s iv e n a m e b e c a u s e
s e iz in g a g e n ts Aw e r e n o t r e q u ir e d to a c c e p t la b e ls a s in d ic a t iv e o f th e d is k s ' c o n -
t e n t s @) .
4 3
U n it e d S ta te s v . H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 3 (D . V t. 1 9 9 8 );
a c c o r d U n it e d S t a t e s v . G r a y , 7 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 8 (E .D . V a . 1 9 9 9 ).
4 4
H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 8 2 ( q u o t in g U n it e d S t a t e s v . R ile y , 9 0 6
F .2 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) .
4 5
O n e c o m m o n ly u s e d t o o l is E n c a s e , d e s ig n e d b y G u id a n c e S o f t w a r e .
S e e w w w . g u id a n c e s o f t w a r e . c o m .
search techniques have inherent strengths and weaknesses:@

T h e u s e f u ln e s s [ o f a u t o m a t e d k e y w o r d s e a r c h e s ] is lim it e d
to s it u a t io n s w h e r e t h e r e is s o m e p r e c is e t e x t u a l id e n t ifie r
th a t c a n b e u s e d a s th e s e a r c h a r g u m e n t. K e y w o r d
s e a r c h e s a r e c o n t e x t in s e n s it iv e , a n d c a n n o t e m p lo y t h e
d is c r im in a t io n u s e d b y a h u m a n in v e s t ig a t o r . I f e it h e r t h e
d a t a e n c o d in g o r t h e a lle g e d c r im in a l a c t iv it y is c o m p le x in
n a t u r e , h u m a n ju d g m e n t w ill b e r e q u ir e d t o d e t e r m in e t h e
e v id e n t ia r y v a lu e o f s p e c if ic e le c t r o n ic d o c u m e n t s a n d
w h e t h e r t h e d o c u m e n t s f a ll w it h in t h e s c o p e o f t h e w a r r a n t .
T h e b e n e f i t s o f e le c t r o n ic s e a r c h t e c h n iq u e s a r e t h a t t h e y
a r e f a s t , a c c u r a t e , a n d w it h in t h e n a r r o w s c o p e o f t h e ir
c a p a b ilit ie s . I f t h e o ffic e r s a r e s e a r c h in g f o r v e r y s p e c ific
in f o r m a t io n a n d k n o w o n e o r t w o e x a c t p h r a s e s o r w o r d s t o
s e a r c h f o r , a c o m p r e h e n s iv e e le c t r o n ic s e a r c h c a n b e
c o n d u c t e d in a m a t t e r o f h o u r s . F o r e x a m p le , i f t h e o f f ic e r s
w e r e s e a r c h in g f o r a c o p y o f s p e c ific in s u r a n c e c la im s o r
a c c o u n t in g r e c o r d s , a n d t h e o ffic e r s k n e w w it h c e r t a in t y t h a t
t h e s e r e c o r d s w o u ld c o n t a in s p e c ific p h r a s e s , n u m b e r s , o r
n a m e s , t h e s e r e c o r d s c o u ld b e lo c a t e d v e r y q u ic k ly . O n c e
t h e a p p r o p r ia t e e le c t r o n ic r e c o r d s w e r e lo c a t e d , t h e y c o u ld
b e c o p ie d o n a file -b y -file b a s is , in e f f e c t a llo w in g s e iz u r e o f
o n ly t h e file s t h a t f a ll w it h in t h e s c o p e o f t h e w a r r a n t .
B y c o n t r a s t , i f t h e o ffic e r s c o n d u c t in g t h e s e a r c h d o n o t
h a v e s p e c ific in f o r m a t io n ( n a m e s , n u m b e r s , p h r a s e s ) s u f f i-
c ie n t t o a llo w a n a c c u r a t e id e n t ific a t io n o f a ll r e le v a n t d o c u -
m e n t s , e le c t r o n ic s e a r c h e s a r e f a r le s s u s e f u l. T h e u s e o f
c o m m o n w o r d s o r p h r a s e s a s k e y w o r d s m a y s t ill h e lp lo c a t e
r e le v a n t e v id e n c e , b u t s u c h s e a r c h e s y ie ld a h ig h n u m b e r o f
f a ls e h it s . F a ls e h it s a r e d o c u m e n t s t h a t c o n t a in t h e
s e a r c h e d Cf o r t e r m , b u t h a v e n o e v i d e n t i a r y v a l u e a n d a r e
b e y o n d th e s c o p e o f th e w a r r a n t.
T h e u s e f u ln e s s o f k e y w o r d s e a r c h e s is f u r t h e r d im in is h e d
b y t h e f a c t t h a t s u c h s e a r c h e s a r e c o n t e x t in s e n s it iv e . C o m -
p u t e r d a t a is e n c o d e d . M a n y c o m p u t e r iz e d d o c u m e n t s
r e q u ir e s p e c ia liz e d s o ftw a r e to r e a d o r r e n d e r t h e ir
c o n te n ts c o m p r e h e n s ib le . S u c h s o ftw a r e p r o v id e s th e
c o n t e x t r e q u ir e d t o in t e r p r e t e le c t r o n ic d a t a . F o r e x a m p le ,
t h e m e d ic a l r e c o r d s , a c c o u n t in g d a t a , a n d m e d ic a l a p p o in t -
m e n t lo g s in o u r h y p o t h e t ic a l w o u ld m o s t p r o b a b ly c o n t a in
m a n y a b b r e v ia t io n s o r c o d e d v a lu e s r e p r e s e n t in g v a r io u s
m e d ic a l p r o c e d u r e s a n d a s s o c ia t e d c h a r g e s . A r e c o r d c o n -
t a in in g a p a t ie n t 's n a m e , a n u m e r ic v a lu e o f 1 , a p r o c e d u r e
c o d e o f 3 4 6 a n d a c h a r g e o f 7 4 0 0 0 0 m ig h t n o t s e e m
s u s p ic io u s . B u t i f t h e n u m e r ic v a lu e 1 is a c o d e t h a t
in d ic a t e s t h a t t h e p a t ie n t is a m a le , a n d t h e m e d ic a l p r o c e -
d u r e c o d e o f 3 4 6 id e n t ifie s t h e o p e r a t io n a s a h y s t e r -
e c t o m y , t h e n t h e le g it im a c y o f t h e $ 7 4 0 0 . 0 0 c h a r g e is
s u s p e c t . W it h o u t k n o w in g t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e n u m b e r s 1 ,
3 4 6 , a n d 7 4 0 0 0 0 , t h e d a t a r e p r e s e n t e d c a n n o t b e e v a lu -
a t e d f o r r e le v a n c e .
T h e m a n n e r in w h ic h c o m p u t e r d a t a is r e p r e s e n t e d a ls o
lim it s t h e e f f e c t iv e s c o p e o f a u t o m a t e d s e a r c h t e c h n iq u e s .
M a n y a u t o m a t e d s e a r c h t o o ls a r e b a s e d o n t h e d e t e c t io n o f
t e x t u a l c h a r a c t e r s t r in g s e m b e d d e d in d o c u m e n t s . T h e s e
t e c h n iq u e s c a n o n ly b e a p p lie d t o t e x t u a l d a t a , a n d n o t f o r
p ic t u r e s , d ia g r a m s , o r s c a n n e d im a g e s . F o r e x a m p le , a
s e a r c h f o r t h e w o r d As u b m a r i n e @ w o u l d l o c a t e t e x t t h a t
c o n t a in e d t h o s e c h a r a c t e r s , b u t it w o u ld f a il t o lo c a t e t h e
s c a n n e d im a g e o f a s u b m a r in e , a d ig it a l p h o t o o f t h e c o n t r o l
t o w e r , o r e v e n a s c a n n e d im a g e o r p h o t o o f t h e o r ig in a l
d o c u m e n t . T h e t e x t u a l s e a r c h w o u ld a ls o f a il t o lo c a t e t h e
d e s ir e d d o c u m e n t if it h a d b e e n c o m p r e s s e d , e n c r y p t e d , o r
p a s s w o r d p r o t e c t e d . D e p e n d in g o n t h e s o f t w a r e u s e d f o r
th e s e a r c h , it m ig h t o r m ig h t n o t d e t e c t t h e w o r d
As u b m a r i n e @ i n f i l e s t h a t h a d b e e n d e l e t e d .
O t h e r t y p e s o f s e a r c h e s d e p e n d o n p r o p e r ly id e n t ify in g
d o c u m e n t s b y e it h e r d o c u m e n t t y p e o r b y file n a m e .
S e a r c h e s b y file n a m e a r e u n r e lia b le b e c a u s e a u s e r is f r e e
t o n a m e ( o r r e n a m e ) file s w it h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e ir c o n t e n t .
S e a r c h e s b y file t y p e , c a n b e a c c o m p lis h e d u s in g s p e c ia liz e d
t o o l s t h a t i d e n t i f y f i l e s b a s e d o n t h e As i g n a t u r e @ a s s o c i a t e d
w it h t h e p r o g r a m u s e d t o c r e a t e t h e file . T h is t e c h n iq u e c a n
b e u s e d t o id e n t ify o r g r o u p file s b a s e d o n h o w d a t a is
r e p r e s e n t e d . T h e s e t o o ls c a n id e n t ify file f o r m a t , b u t a r e n o t
a b le t o s e a r c h c o n t e n t . S e a r c h e s b a s e d o n file t y p e a r e n o t
n o r m a lly e f f e c t iv e a g a in s t f ile s w h ic h h a v e b e e n e n c r y p t e d ,
c o m p r e s s e d , o r p a s s w o r d p r o te c te d .4 6
4 6
B r e n n e r & F r e d e r ik s e n , s u p r a n o te 1 8 , a t 6 0 -6 2 ; s e e a ls o
This passage merely describes the current state of competition

between criminal minds and government investigators. The
ability to hide evidence in electronic storage constantly evolves
and the government must keep pace or catch up.47 There will
always be a considerable amount of uncertainty at any given
time whether any one search technique identifies with an
acceptable degree of accuracy what a file contains without
opening it.
A second question is a legal one: does the Fourth Amendment
S E A R C H IN G A N D S E IZ IN G C O M P U T E R S A N D O B T A IN IN G E L E C T R O N IC E V ID E N C E IN C R IM IN A L
I N V E S T IG A T IO N S 5 9 (r e v . e d . 2 0 0 2 ), a t
h t t p :/ / w w w .p u r l.a c c e s s .g p o .g o v / G P O / c p s 1 1 3 6 1 [ h e r e in a f t e r C C IP S M a n u a l]
( AE v e n w h e r e a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t i s k n o w n a b o u t a s y s t e m , t h e a g e n t s a n d t e c h n i -
c ia n s c o n d u c t in g a r e v ie w o f d a t a o f t e n h a v e t o u s e a n u m b e r o f d iffe r e n t t e c h n iq u e s
in o r d e r to t h o r o u g h ly s e a r c h a c o m p u te r a n d it s s to r a g e m e d ia . S o m e t im e s ,
s e e m in g ly c o m m o n p la c e d a ta o r c o n fig u r a t io n s c a n n o t b e c o p ie d , r e v ie w e d o r
a n a ly z e d b y o n e s e a r c h p r o g r a m o r p r o t o c o l, s o a n o t h e r Bo r s e v e r a l d if f e r e n t
o n e s Bm u s t b e t r ie d . K e y w o r d s e a r c h e s m a y n o t b e p o s s ib le u n t il a c a r e f u l r e v ie w o f
a p o r t io n o f t h e file s is c o n d u c t e d ; m o r e o v e r , a c a r e f u l d a t a s e a r c h m a y r e v e a l o t h e r ,
o t h e r w is e u n a p p a r e n t a s p e c ts o f h o w th e s y s t e m is u s e d a n d d a ta g e n e r a te d , a c -
c e s s e d , t r a n s m i t t e d a n d s t o r e d . @) ; i d . a t 1 0 5 ( d is c u s s in g h o w it is n e c e s s a r y t o h a v e
a Ar o b u s t s e a r c h s t r a t e g y @ t h a t m a y r e q u i r e Aa c a r e f u l f i l e - b y - f i l e r e v i e w @ b e c a u s e o f ,
in t e r a lia , t h e lim it a t io n s o f k e y w o r d s e a r c h e s , th e u s e o f c o d e w o r d s in file s , a n d
u n u s u a l lo c a t io n s w h e r e th e d a ta m a y b e s to r e d o n a c o m p u t e r ) ; O r in K e r r , D ig it a l
E v id e n c e a n d th e N e w C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e , 1 0 5 C O L U M . L . R E V . 2 7 9 , 3 0 3 (2 0 0 5 )
( AE x i s t i n g t e c h n o lo g y s im p ly g iv e s u s n o w a y to k n o w a h e a d o f tim e w h e r e in s id e a
c o m p u te r a p a r t ic u la r file o r p ie c e o f in f o r m a t io n m a y b e l o c a t e d . @) ; E O G H A N C A S E Y ,
D IG IT A L E V ID E N C E A N D C O M P U T E R C R IM E ( 2 d e d . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d e s c r ib in g a m e t h o d ic a l d a t a
filte r in g p r o c e s s t h a t in c lu d e s s e v e r a l d iffe r e n t t o o ls , id . a t 6 3 2 -4 3 , a n d o b s e r v in g
t h a t d ig it a l e v id e n c e a n a ly s is r e q u ir e s e x a m in e r s to e m p lo y f ilt e r in g p r o c e d u r e s to
fin d p o t e n t ia lly u s e fu l d a ta a n d t h a t A[ l ] e s s m e t h o d ic a l d a t a r e d u c t io n t e c h n iq u e s ,
s u c h a s s e a r c h in g f o r s p e c ific k e y w o r d s o r e x t r a c t in g o n ly c e r t a in file t y p e s m a y n o t
o n ly m is s im p o r t a n t c lu e s b u t c a n s t ill le a v e th e e x a m in e r s flo u n d e r in g in a s e a o f
s u p e r f l u o u s d a t a @, i d . a t 2 3 0 ) .
4 7
S e e , e . g . , E O G H A N C A S E Y , D IG IT A L E V ID E N C E A N D C O M P U T E R C R IM E 6 4 3
(2 d e d . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g th e c h a lle n g e s to in v e s t ig a t o r s o f c o m p r e s s e d file s , e n -
c r y p te d file s , e -m a ils , a n d e m a i l a t t a c h m e n t s , w h i c h r e q u i r e a Ac o m b i n a t i o n o f t o o ls
w i t h d i f f e r e n t f e a t u r e s @) .
mandate that advanced technological search engines be used? If

technology is constantly evolvingBand it is, then the inquiry is a
moving target. This is to say that law enforcement must always
stay on the cutting edge of technological change and continually
invest money and resources for new training and new
equipment. Such a mandate would be, in my view, a form of a
least intrusive means analysis.48 Recourse to a least intrusive
analysis is a persistent minority view of the Fourth
Amendment's requirements.49 This is despite the clear mandate
from the Supreme Court that it is not an element of reason-
ableness.50 Indeed, there is no support for such an analysis in
the language of the Amendment or in the historical regulation
of search and seizure powers.51 A least intrusive means analysis
first appeared in opinions during the Warren Court era and its
advocates do not rely on historical precedent to support it.
Rather, they argue that it is necessary to achieve equivalence of
protection between Fourth Amendment rights and other
guarantees of the Bill of Rights.52 For example, one commenta-
tor has argued that Athe rationale which is commonly offered
4 8
S e e W in ic k , s u p r a n o te 1 8 , a t 1 0 8 ( A[ T ] h e g o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d b e a r
a h e a v y b u r d e n in d e m o n s t r a t in g th a t n o le s s in t r u s iv e m e t h o d is a v a ila b le to s e p a -
r a t e file s f a llin g w it h in t h e s c o p e o f t h e w a r r a n t f r o m file s f a llin g o u t s id e t h e s c o p e o f
t h e w a r r a n t . @) .
4 9
S e e T h o m a s K . C la n c y , P r o t e c t iv e S e a r c h e s , P a t -D o w n s , o r F r is k s ? :
T h e S c o p e o f th e P e r m is s ib le In t r u s io n to A s c e r t a in if a D e t a in e d P e r s o n is A r m e d ,
8 2 M A R Q . L . R E V . 4 9 1 , 5 1 3 -1 4 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( c o lle c t in g c a s e s ) .
5 0
S e e id . a t 5 1 4 -1 5 ( c o lle c t in g c a s e s ) .
5 1
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . K o y o m e jia n , 9 7 0 F .2 d 5 3 6 , 5 4 6 (9 th
C ir . ) ( K o z in s k i, J . , c o n c u r r in g ) ( f i n d in g n o s u p p o r t f o r a le a s t in t r u s iv e m e a n s r e q u ir e -
m e n t in e it h e r th e la n g u a g e o f th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t o r in th e At w o c e n t u r ie s o f
s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e c a s e la w @ in t e r p r e t in g it ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 5 0 6 U .S . 1 0 0 5 (1 9 9 2 ).
5 2
S e e N a d in e S t r o s s e n , T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t in th e B a la n c e :
A c c u r a t e ly S e t t in g t h e S c a le s t h r o u g h t h e L e a s t I n t r u s iv e M e a n s A n a ly s is , 6 3 N .Y .U .
L . R E V . 1 1 7 3 , 1 2 4 2 (1 9 8 8 ); S c o tt E . S u n d b y , A R e tu r n to F o u r th A m e n d m e n t
B a s ic s : U n d o in g th e M is c h ie f o f C a m a r a a n d T e r r y , 7 2 M IN N . L . R E V . 3 8 3 , 4 3 6 - 3 7
( 1 9 8 8 ) ( a r g u in g t h a t a s t r ic t s c r u t in y -le a s t in t r u s iv e m e a n s s t a n d a r d w o u ld Ab e s t o w
p r e f e r r e d s t a t u s u p o n t h e f o u r t h a m e n d m e n t a s a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t @) .
for according a special status to first amendment libertiesCthat

they created the environment necessary for other freedoms to
flourishBis equally applicable to the fourth amendment.@53 Such
broad brush analysis ignores important historical differences in
constitutional rights and the language of the constitution. For
example, the First Amendment's Speech Clause utilizes ab-
solute language: ACongress shall make no law . . . abridging the
freedom of speech.@ Given that absolute bar, as a general
matter, it is appropriate that restrictions on speech should be
subjected to a requirement of necessity, that is, that the
government have a compelling interest and that the restriction
be narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest.54 Such close
tailoring analysis is, however, inappropriate in the Fourth
Amendment context, which, instead of barring governmental
intrusions, requires only that the intrusion be reasonable. This
is to say that reasonableness is a more forgiving concept than a
least intrusive means analysis allows. In accordance with that
mandate, the means need be only reasonably related to the
justification for the intrusion.55
The proper question for searches of data stored on a com-
puterBas with all questions of reasonablenessBis whether the
means chosen by the government to execute the search are rea-
sonably related to the purpose of the search. This inquiry, in
my view, does not mandate that the police utilize any specific
technology or procedures at any given time, particularly where
the state of technology creates uncertainty that the search
would be effective if limited to certain means. Indeed, there is
no parallel in Supreme Court jurisprudence limiting intrusions
5 3
S t r o s s e n , s u p r a n o te 5 2 , a t 1 2 4 1 ( f o o t n o t e o m it t e d ) .
5 4
S e e , e . g . , A s h c r o f t v . A m e r ic a n C iv il L ib e r t ie s U n io n , 5 4 2 U .S . 6 5 6
(2 0 0 4 ) (lo o k in g to le s s r e s t r ic t iv e a lt e r n a t iv e s to c o n t e n t -b a s e d r e s t r ic t io n s o n
s p e e c h in c o n t e x t o f C o n g r e s s io n a l a t t e m p t s t o p r o t e c t m in o r s f r o m s e x u a lly e x p lic it
m a t e r ia ls o n In t e r n e t ) .
5 5
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . G r a y , 7 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 9 n .8 (E .D . V a .
1 9 9 9 ) ( p o l i c e s e a r c h i n g c o m p u t e r s n o t o b l i g a t e d t o c o n d u c t At h e m o s t t e c h n i c a l l y a d -
v a n c e d s e a r c h p o s s i b l e @; i n s t e a d , p r o p e r q u e s t io n is Aw h e t h e r th e s e a r c h , a s c o n -
d u c t e d w a s r e a s o n a b l e @) .
to means that might permit evidence to go undetected once it is

determined that the police have a warrant to search based on
probable cause to believe that the place to be searched contains
evidence of a crime.56
c. Does the Nature or Amount of Material Make Computers

Different from Other Containers?
A fundamental premise of the Aspecial approach,@ which

asserts that computers should be treated differently than other
containers of evidence, is the belief that Aelectronic storage is
likely to contain a greater quantity and variety of information
than any previous storage method.@57 The premise does not
dispute that, at the most basic level, a computer is a container
of a variety of items, ranging from wires to hard drives, some of
which hold (contain!) digital evidence. The underlying rationale
seems to be nothing more than the fact that computers store
such a vast amount of information of all sorts that the particu-
lar container called a computer becomes distinct from any pre-
vious container.
The Supreme Court at one point attempted to distinguish
among types of containers in ranking expectations of privacy.
5 6
S e e g e n e r a lly T h o m a s K . C la n c y , T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t 's C o n c e p t
o f R e a s o n a b le n e s s , 2 0 0 4 U T A H L . R E V . 9 7 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) [ h e r e in a f t e r C la n c y , C o n c e p t o f
R e a s o n a b le n e s s ] ( d is c u s s in g th e S u p r e m e C o u r t 's r e a s o n a b le n e s s a n a ly s is ) . T h e
C o u r t h a s c r e a te d a fe w u n u s u a l r e s t r ic t io n s fo r p r o b a b le -c a u s e b a s e d in t r u s io n s
d u e to h e ig h t e n e d c o n c e r n s f o r in t r u s io n s in t o th e b o d y a n d b a s e d o n fr e e -s p e e c h
c o n c e r n s . S e e id . a t 1 0 1 5 -2 0 . C e r t a in ly , t h e s e a r c h o f a c o m p u t e r is n o t a n a lo g o u s
to a fo r c e d s u r g ic a l p r o c e d u r e to r e m o v e a b u lle t fro m a p e r s o n 's c h e s t. S e e
W in s t o n v . L e e , 4 7 0 U .S . 7 5 3 , 7 5 5 (1 9 8 5 ). M o r e o v e r , e v e n in th e a r e a o f fr e e
s p e e c h , th e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t a w a r r a n t b a s e d o n p r o b a b le c a u s e is s u ffic ie n t
a u t h o r it y to s e a r c h n e w s p a p e r o ffic e s fo r e v id e n c e o f a c r im e . S e e Z u r c h e r v .
S t a n f o r d D a ily , 4 3 6 U .S . 5 4 7 , 5 6 6 -6 7 (1 9 7 8 ). C o n g r e s s , in r e s p o n s e t o Z u r c h e r ,
h a s im p o s e d s e v e r a l s t a t u t o r y o b lig a t io n s o n la w e n f o r c e m e n t w h e n t h e r e is r e a s o n
to b e lie v e t h a t F ir s t A m e n d m e n t m a t e r ia ls a r e in v o lv e d . S e e , e . g . , C C IP S M a n u a l,
s u p r a n o t e 4 6 , a t 4 4 -4 7 ( d is c u s s in g t h e P r iv a c y P r o t e c t io n A c t ) .
5 7
W in ic k , s u p r a n o t e 1 8 , a t 1 0 5 .
Luggage had high expectations of privacy.58 But other contain-

ers did not Adeserve the full protection of the Fourth Amend-
ment.@59 The bankruptcy of an analytical structure based on
distinguishing between types of containers soon became evi-
dent, at least to a plurality of the Court: it had no basis in the
language of the Amendment, which Aprotects people and their
effects, . . . whether they are `personal' or ìmpersonal.'@60 Thus,
the contents of closed footlockers or suitcases and opaque con-
tainers were immune from a warrantless search because the
owners Areasonably `manifested an expectation that the con-
tents would remain free from public examination.'@61 Moreover,
the plurality believed that it would be Adifficult if not impossible
to perceive any objective criteria@ to make any distinction be-
tween containers: AWhat one person may put into a suitcase,
another may put into a paper bag.@62 A majority of the Court
later adopted the view that there was no distinction between
Aworthy@ and Aunworthy@ containers:
t h e c e n t r a l p u r p o s e o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t f o r e c lo s e s
s u c h a d is t in c t io n . F o r ju s t a s t h e m o s t f r a il c o t t a g e in t h e
k in g d o m is a b s o lu t e ly e n t it le d t o t h e s a m e g u a r a n t e e s o f
5 8
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . C h a d w ic k , 4 3 3 U .S . 1 , 1 2 -1 3 (1 9 7 7 )
( c o n t r a s t in g r e d u c e d e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y s u r r o u n d in g a n a u t o m o b ile w it h lu g g a g e
a n d a s s e r t i n g : AU n l i k e a n a u t o m o b ile , w h o s e p r im a r y f u n c t io n is t r a n s p o r t a t io n , lu g -
g a g e is in t e n d e d a s a r e p o s it o r y o f p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s . I n s u m , a p e r s o n 's e x p e c t a t io n s
o f p r iv a c y in p e r s o n a l lu g g a g e a r e s u b s t a n t ia lly g r e a t e r t h a n i n a n a u t o m o b i l e . @) ; a c -
c o r d F lo r id a v . J im e n o , 5 0 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 3 -5 4 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( M a r s h a ll, J . , d is s e n t in g ) ;
s e e a ls o D o n a ld A . D r ip p s , T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t a n d t h e F a lla c y o f C o m p o s it io n :
D e t e r m in a c y V e r s u s L e g it im a c y in a R e g im e o f B r ig h t -L in e R u le s , 7 4 M IS S . L . J . 3 4 1 ,
3 7 9 -8 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g th e C o u r t 's in c o n s is t e n t t r e a t m e n t o f c o n t a in e r s in v e h i-
c le s ) .
5 9
A r k a n s a s v . S a n d e r s , 4 4 2 U .S . 7 5 3 , 7 6 5 n .1 3 (1 9 7 9 ). In d e e d ,
As o m e c o n t a in e r s (fo r e x a m p le a k it o f b u r g la r t o o ls o r a g u n c a s e ) b y t h e ir v e r y
n a tu r e [ c o u ld n o t] s u p p o r t a n y r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y b e c a u s e t h e ir
c o n te n ts [ c o u ld ] b e in f e r r e d f r o m t h e ir o u t w a r d a p p e a r a n c e .@ Id . ; a c c o r d W a lt e r v .
U n it e d S t a t e s , 4 4 7 U .S . 6 4 9 , 6 5 8 n .1 2 (1 9 8 0 ).
6 0
R o b b in s v . C a lifo r n ia , 4 5 3 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 2 6 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( p lu r a lit y o p in io n ) .
6 1
Id .
6 2
Id .
p r iv a c y a s th e m o s t m a je s t ic m a n s io n , s o a ls o m a y a
t r a v e le r w h o c a r r ie s a to o th b r u s h a n d a fe w a r t ic le s o f
c lo t h in g in a p a p e r b a g o r k n o tt e d s c a r f c la im a n e q u a l r ig h t
to c o n c e a l h is p o s s e s s io n s f r o m o ffic ia l in s p e c t io n a s t h e
s o p h is t ic a t e d e x e c u t iv e w it h t h e lo c k e d a tt a c h e c a s e .6 3
Based on this reasoning, it seems clear that the Supreme

Court wouldBand shouldBreject a special rule for electronic
evidence containers. Otherwise, contrary to Supreme Court
precedent and sound reasoning, filing cabinets, diaries, books,
floppy drives, hard drives, paper bags, and other storage devic-
es would all require different rules. Moreover, given the pace of
technological change, which permits ever greater storage of
information on ever smaller devices, such distinctions are illu-
sory. Finally, the fact that some of the evidence in electronic
storage is intermingled with other materials should not change
the analysis. The same can be said of many other containers:
diaries may contain evidence unrelated to the crime; filing
cabinets often hold not only files of business-related paper but
also miscellaneous other documents, ranging from personal tax
records to family photographs.
6 3
U n it e d S ta te s v . R o s s , 4 5 6 U .S . 7 9 8 , 8 2 2 (1 9 8 2 ) (fo o tn o te
o m it t e d ) ; a c c o r d F lo r id a v . J im e n o , 5 0 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 3 -5 4 (1 9 9 1 ) (M a r s h a ll, J . ,
d is s e n t in g ) ; s e e a ls o C a lifo r n ia v . C a r n e y , 4 7 1 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 4 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( r e je c t in g d is -
t in c t io n b e tw e e n w o r th y a n d u n w o r th y m o to r v e h ic le s ) ; N e w J e r s e y v . T .L .O ., 4 6 9
U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 3 7 -3 9 (1 9 8 5 ) (s tu d e n t h a s p r o te c te d p r iv a c y in t e r e s t in h e r p u r s e a t
s c h o o l ) . B u t c f . C a lifo r n ia v . G r e e n w o o d , 4 8 6 U .S . 3 5 , 4 0 -4 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( p e r s o n le a v in g
p la s t ic t r a s h b a g s f o r c o lle c t io n h a s n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y a s t o th e
c o n te n ts o f th e b a g s ).
d. Limitations Based on Search Execution

Procedures in Warrants
Based at least in part on the other premises of the Aspecial

approach,@ that is, computers are different than other contain-
ers, that there should be limitations on how the government
may conduct a search based on file names or types, or that
software search technology must be employed, some authorities
require that the warrant set forth the police strategy for exe-
cuting the search for electronic evidence.64 Frankly, there is no
basis in the language of the Fourth Amendment or Supreme
Court caselaw65 for such warrant requirements. As emphasized
by the Supreme Court in Dalia v. United States,66 the Warrant
Clause contains three requirements for a search warrant to
issue: an oath or affirmation; probable cause to search; and a
particular description of the place to be searched.67 Grounded in
that language, the Dalia Court rejected the claim that a war-
rant must specifically authorize a covert entry in order for such
a manner of execution of a warrant to be legal. The Court rea-
soned:
6 4
S e e , e .g ., In r e S e a r c h o f 3 8 1 7 W . W e s t E n d , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t
9 5 8 -6 3 ( d is c u s s in g t h e p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t s a s a p p lie d t o c o m p u t e r s e a r c h e s ) .
T h e U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t ic e 's m a n u a l o n h o w to s e a r c h c o m p u te r s m a y
b e p a r t ly t o b la m e f o r t h is b e c a u s e it s t a t e s t h a t a c o m p u t e r s e a r c h w a r r a n t s h o u ld
s e t fo r th a s e a r c h s t r a te g y a n d th e r e a s o n s fo r th a t s t r a te g y. S e e C C IP S M a n u a l,
s u p r a n o te 4 6 , 6 9 -7 5 . H o w e v e r , it h a s b e e n n o te d th a t th e C C IP S m a n u a l is n o t
a u t h o r it a t iv e o n w h a t t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t r e q u i r e s a n d t h a t , a l t h o u g h Ai t m a y b e
p r e f e r a b le a n d a d v is a b le to s e t fo r th a c o m p u te r s e a r c h s t r a te g y in a w a r r a n t
a ffid a v it , f a ilu r e t o d o s o d o e s n o t r e n d e r c o m p u t e r s e a r c h p r o v i s io n s u n d u ly b r o a d . @
M a a li M . , 3 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 2 4 6 . In d e e d , t h e C C IP S m a n u a l it s e lf r e c o g n iz e s t h e
in h e r e n t d iffic u lt y o f m a n d a t in g a p r e d e t e r m in e d s e a r c h s t r a t e g y : AE v e r y c o m p u te r
a n d c o m p u te r n e tw o r k is d if f e r e n t , a n d s u b t le d iffe r e n c e s in h a r d w a r e , s o ftw a r e ,
o p e r a t in g s y s t e m s , a n d s y s t e m s c o n fig u r a t io n c a n a lt e r th e s e a r c h p la n d r a -
m a t ic a lly . @ C C IP S M a n u a l, s u p r a n o t e 4 6 , a t 3 9 .
6 5
In A n d r e s e n , th e C o u r t d id a s s e r t t h a t , f o r d o c u m e n t s e a r c h e s a n d
t e le p h o n e c o n v e r s a t io n s e iz u r e s , Ar e s p o n s i b l e o ffic ia ls , in c lu d in g ju d ic ia l o f f ic ia ls ,
m u s t t a k e c a r e t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e y a r e c o n d u c t e d in a m a n n e r t h a t m in im iz e s u n w a r -
N o t h in g in t h e la n g u a g e o f t h e C o n s t it u t io n o r in t h is C o u r t 's
d e c is io n s in t e r p r e t in g t h a t la n g u a g e s u g g e s t s t h a t . . . w a r -
r a n t s a ls o m u s t in c lu d e a s p e c ific a t io n o f t h e p r e c is e
m a n n e r in w h ic h t h e y a r e t o b e e x e c u t e d . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , it
is g e n e r a lly le f t t o t h e d is c r e t io n o f t h e e x e c u t in g o f f ic e r s t o
d e t e r m in e t h e d e t a ils o f h o w b e s t t o p r o c e e d w it h t h e
p e r f o r m a n c e o f a s e a r c h a u t h o r iz e d b y w a r r a n t -s u b je c t o f
c o u r s e to th e g e n e r a l F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t io n
Aa g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s . @
. . . .
It w o u ld e x t e n d t h e W a r r a n t C la u s e t o t h e e x t r e m e t o r e -
q u ir e t h a t , w h e n e v e r it is r e a s o n a b ly lik e ly t h a t F o u r t h
r a n te d in t r u s io n s u p o n p r iv a c y . @ 4 2 7 U .S . a t 4 8 2 n . 1 1 . N o t h in g in t h a t la n g u a g e
s u g g e s ts th a t th e m a n n e r in w h ic h a s e a r c h is t o b e c o n d u c t e d w a s s u b je c t t o p r e -
a u t h o r iz a t io n b y th e ju d ic ia r y . A ls o , B e r g e r v . N e w Y o r k , 3 8 8 U .S . 4 1 (1 9 6 7 ),
p r o p e r ly u n d e r s to o d , d o e s n o t s u p p o r t p r e -a u t h o r iz a t io n p r o c e d u r e s in a w a r r a n t
b e y o n d w h a t th e W a r r a n t C la u s e r e q u ir e s . I n s t r ik in g d o w n a s t a t u t e t h a t a u t h o r iz e d
w ir e t a p p in g o f t e le p h o n e c o n v e r s a t io n s , t h e B e r g e r C o u r t id e n t ifie d th e s t a t u t e 's
f a ilu r e s a s n o n c o m p lia n c e w it h t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t 's p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t s o f
n a m in g th e c r im e th a t h a d b e e n o r w a s b e in g c o m m it t e d a n d s p e c ify in g th e c o n -
v e r s a t io n s to b e s e a r c h e d . Id . a t 5 5 -6 0 . T h e C o u r t a d d e d th a t th e s ta tu te h a d th e
v ic e o f f a ilin g to p la c e a t e r m in a t io n d a te o n th e e a v e s d r o p o n c e th e c o n v e r s a t io n
t a r g e t e d h a d b e e n s e iz e d . Id . a t 5 9 -6 0 . T h is la t t e r m in im iz a t io n p r o c e d u r e s t e m s n o t
fr o m W a r r a n t C la u s e r e q u ir e m e n t s r e g u la t in g th e is s u a n c e o f a w a r r a n t b u t fro m
th e n a tu r e o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s , t h e fu n d a m e n ta l c o m m a n d o f th e fir s t c la u s e o f th e
A m e n d m e n t , w h ic h m a n d a te s th a t th e s c o p e o f a n in t r u s io n m u s t b e r e a s o n a b ly
r e la t e d to it s ju s t ific a t io n . S e e , e . g . , N e w J e r s e y v . T .L .O ., 4 6 9 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 4 1
( 1 9 8 5 ) ( n o t in g th e t w o f o ld in q u ir y t o a s s e s s th e r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f a s e a r c h : in it ia l
ju s t ific a t io n fo r s e a r c h a n d th e s u b s e q u e n t s c o p e o f t h a t s e a r c h ) . N o t h in g in th a t
r e a s o n a b le n e s s in q u ir y r e q u ir e s p r e -a u t h o r iz a t io n . P r im a r ily in r e s p o n s e to B e r g e r ,
C o n g r e s s c r e a te d m in im iz a t io n r e q u ir e m e n t s u p o n la w e n f o r c e m e n t o ffic e r s s e e k in g
to in t e r c e p t e le c t r o n ic c o m m u n ic a t io n s , m a n d a t in g th a t a tte m p ts b e m a d e to lim it
in t e r c e p t io n s to th o s e c o n v e r s a t io n s th a t a r e r e le v a n t t o th e c r im in a l a c t iv it y t h a t
th e y a r e a u t h o r iz e d to in v e s t ig a t e . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . '2 5 1 8 (5 ). T h o s e b r o a d p r o h ib i-
t io n s h a v e s ig n ific a n t a p p lic a t io n to c o m p u t e r -f a c ilit a t e d c o m m u n ic a t io n s . S e e
g e n e r a lly C C IP S M a n u a l, s u p r a n o t e 4 6 , a t 1 6 4 -9 6 .
6 6
4 4 1 U .S . 2 3 8 (1 9 7 9 ).
6 7
Id . a t 2 5 5 .
A m e n d m e n t r ig h t s m a y b e a ffe c te d in m o r e th a n o n e w a y,
th e c o u r t m u s t s e t fo r t h p r e c is e ly t h e p r o c e d u r e s to b e
f o llo w e d b y th e e x e c u t in g o ffic e r s . S u c h a n in t e r p r e t a t io n is
u n n e c e s s a r y , a s w e h a v e h e ld . . . th e m a n n e r in w h ic h a
w a r r a n t is e x e c u t e d is s u b je c t t o la t e r ju d ic ia l r e v ie w a s to
it s r e a s o n a b le n e s s . 6 8
Indeed, in the computer context, some courts have recognized

that a warrant need not specify the methods of recovery of the
data or the tests to be performed because A[t]he warrant process
is primarily concerned with identifying what may be searched
or seizedBnot howBand whether there is sufficient cause for the
invasion of privacy thus entailed.@69
6 8
Id . a t 2 5 7 -5 8 ( f o o t n o t e o m it t e d ) .
6 9
U n it e d S t a t e s v . U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 7 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) .
III. SELECTED FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLICABILITY ISSUES
A. Expectation of Privacy Analysis
1. In General
A person seeking to challenge the propriety of a governmental

search must establish that she has a protected interest, which
the Supreme Court measures by ascertaining whether she has
a legitimate expectation of privacy that has been invaded by
the government.70 This expectation of privacy inquiry is two
pronged: the individual must show that she has a subjective
expectation of privacy; and that that subjective expectation of
privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reason-
able.71 If either prong is missing, no protected interest is estab-
lished.72 The application of this doctrine in the computer con-
text is not without critics;73 nonetheless, it remains the frame-
7 0
R a k a s v . Illin o is , 4 3 9 U .S . 1 2 8 , 1 4 3 (1 9 7 8 ). B u t s e e T h o m a s K .
C la n c y , W h a t D o e s th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t P r o t e c t : P r o p e r t y , P r iv a c y , o r S e c u r i t y ? ,
3 3 W A K E F O R E S T L . R E V . 3 0 7 , 3 2 7 -4 4 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( d is c u s s in g o r ig in s a n d d e v e lo p m e n t o f
th e p r iv a c y e x p e c t a t io n s te s t a n d a r g u in g th a t it in a d e q u a t e ly d e s c r ib e s th e
in d iv id u a l's in t e r e s t s p r o t e c t e d b y t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ) .
7 1
S e e , e .g ., K a t z v . U n it e d S ta te s , 3 8 9 U .S . 3 4 7 , 3 6 1 (1 9 6 7 )
( H a r la n , J . , c o n c u r r in g ) ; C a lifo r n ia v . C ir a o lo , 4 7 6 U .S . 2 0 7 , 2 1 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( s t a t in g
t h a t AJ u s t i c e H a r l a n m a d e i t c r y s t a l c l e a r t h a t h e w a s r e s t i n g o n t h e r e a l i t y t h a t o n e
w h o e n t e r s a t e le p h o n e b o o t h is e n t it le d t o a s s u m e t h a t h is c o n v e r s a t io n is n o t b e in g
i n t e r c e p t e d @) ; S m i t h v . M a r y la n d , 4 4 2 U .S . 7 3 5 , 7 4 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( s t a t in g th a t th e
H a r l a n t e s t Ae m b r a c e s t w o d i s c r e t e q u e s t i o n s @) .
7 2
T o s u p p o r t t h is p r iv a c y a n a ly s is , t h e C o u r t h a s c r e a te d a h ie r a r c h y
o f p r iv a c y in t e r e s t s . F ir s t , e x p e c t a t io n s o f p r iv a c y th a t As o c i e t y is `p r e p a r e d to
r e c o g n iz e a s le g it im a t e '@ h a v e , a t le a s t in th e o r y , th e g r e a te s t p r o t e c t io n . N e w
J e r s e y v . T .L .O ., 4 6 9 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 3 8 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( q u o t in g H u d s o n v . P a lm e r , 4 6 8 U .S .
5 1 7 , 5 2 6 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ) . S e c o n d , d im in is h e d e x p e c t a t io n s o f p r iv a c y a r e m o r e e a s ily in v a d -
e d . S e e id . a t 3 4 2 n .8 ( d is c u s s in g t h e in d iv id u a l s u s p ic io n r e q u ir e m e n t w h e n p r i v a c y
in t e r e s t s a r e m in im a l ) ; a c c o r d S k in n e r v . R a ilw a y L a b o r E x e c u t iv e s ' A s s 'n , 4 8 9 U .S .
6 0 2 , 6 2 4 -2 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h ir d , s u b je c t iv e e x p e c t a t io n s o f p r iv a c y t h a t s o c ie t y is n o t
p r e p a r e d to r e c o g n iz e a s le g it im a t e h a v e n o p r o t e c t io n . S e e , e . g . , R a k a s v . Illin o is ,
4 3 9 U .S . 1 2 8 , 1 4 3 n .1 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . C a y m e n , 4 0 4 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 0 -
0 1 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in th e c o n te n ts o f
c o m p u te r s th e p e r s o n h a s s t o le n o r o b t a in e d b y fra u d ). S e e g e n e r a lly C la n c y ,
C o n c e p t o f R e a s o n a b le n e s s , s u p r a n o te 5 6 , a t 1 0 0 5 -1 3 ( d is c u s s in g th e im p a c t o f
t h e p r iv a c y h ie r a r c h y o n t h e C o u r t 's r e a s o n a b le n e s s a n a ly s is ) .
7 3
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . H a m b r ic k , 5 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 8
(W . D . V a . 1 9 9 9 ) ( AC y b e r s p a c e i s a n o n p h y s i c a l ` p l a c e ' a n d i t s v e r y s t r u c t u r e , a c o m -
p u t e r a n d t e le p h o n e n e t w o r k t h a t c o n n e c t s m illio n s o f u s e r s , d e fie s t r a d it io n a l F o u r t h
work to assess a person's ability to challenge the propriety of

governmental searches. The following sections discuss the more
common situations where the reasonable expectation of privacy
analysis has been applied in the computer context.
2. The Location of the ComputerCIn General
Preliminarily, it is important to distinguish between the

exterior of the computer (including what is visible on the
monitor's screen) and its contents. As to locating a computer,
the person seeking to challenge plain view74 observations made
upon observing the computer must establish an expectation of
privacy in the place where the computer is stored.75 Thus, for
example, when computers are located in a common storage area
accessible to hotel employees and tenants, a person does not
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the physical compo-
nents of that computer.76 In contrast, homeowners have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in their belongings, including
computers, in their home.77 Equally true, however, is the prin-
ciple that persons with no expectation of privacy in someone
else's home or that home's contents cannot challenge the search
or seizure of another's computer in that home.78
A m e n d m e n t a n a ly s is . S o lo n g a s th e r is k -a n a ly s is a p p r o a c h o f K a t z r e m a in s v a lid ,
h o w e v e r , t h is c o u r t is c o m p e lle d to a p p ly t r a d it io n a l le g a l p r in c ip le s t o t h is n e w a n d
c o n t i n u a l l y e v o l v i n g t e c h n o l o g y . @) .
7 4
S e e d is c u s s io n in f r a a t 2 6 2 -6 4 .
7 5
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . L y o n s , 9 9 2 F .2 d 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 3 1 -3 2 (1 0 th
C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in a s t o le n h a r d d r iv e ) ; U n it e d
S t a t e s v . P o u ls e n , 4 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 7 ( 9 t h C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o ld in g t h a t a p e r s o n w h o
f a ile d t o p a y r e n t h a d n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in t h e c o n t e n t s o f s t o r a g e
lo c k e r , in c lu d in g c o m p u t e r t a p e s ) .
7 6
U n it e d S t a t e s v . N e t t le s , 1 7 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 3 -9 4 (N .D . Ill.
2 0 0 1 ).
7 7
G u e s t , 2 5 5 F .3 d a t 3 3 3 ; s e e a ls o P e o p le v . O 'B r ie n , 7 6 9 N .Y .S .2 d
6 5 4 , 6 5 6 ( N . Y . A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 3 ) ( d e f e n d a n t h a d r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in
c o m p u t e r in h is b e d r o o m ) .
7 8
G u e s t v . L e is , 2 5 5 F .3 d a t 3 3 3 .
3. Data on Work ComputersCGovernmental Employer
Government employees may have a legitimate expectation of

privacy in their offices or parts of their offices.79 However, office
policies, practices, or regulations may reduce that expectation
of privacy.80 In the context of government computers used by
employees, the assessment whether an employee has standing
to challenge a search is made Aìn the context of the
employment relation,' after considering what access other em-
ployees or the public had to [the employee's] office@81 and is
done on a case-by-case basis.82
When the employer has no policy notifying employees that
their computer use could be monitored and there is no indica-
tion that the employer directs others to routinely access the
employees' computers, the employees' subjective beliefs that
their computer files are private may be objectively reasonable.83
Thus, for example, in Leventhal v. Knapek,84 the court held that
Leventhal had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a com-
puter in a private office that he occupied.85 He had exclusive
use of the computer.86 The agency did not have a general
practice of routinely conducting searches of office computers nor
had it placed Leventhal on notice that he should have no
7 9
O 'C o n n o r v . O r t e g a , 4 8 0 U .S . 7 0 9 , 7 1 6 -1 8 (1 9 8 7 ) ( p lu r a lit y
o p in io n ) .
8 0
Id . a t 7 1 7 .
8 1
L e v e n th a l v. K n a p e k , 2 6 6 F .3 d 6 4 , 7 3 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t in g
O 'C o n n o r , 4 8 0 U . S . a t 7 1 7 ) ; c f . V o y le s v . S t a t e , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 (T e x . A p p .
2 0 0 4 ) (te a c h e r h a d n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in c o m p u te r o w n e d b y
s c h o o l d is t r ic t t h a t h a d b e e n p la c e d o n t e a c h e r 's d e s k in c o m p u te r la b o r a t o r y t o
te a c h s tu d e n ts a b o u t c o m p u te r s ).
8 2
O 'C o n n o r , 4 8 0 U .S . a t 7 1 8 .
8 3
U n it e d S ta te s v . S la n in a , 2 8 3 F .3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 6 -7 7 (5 th C ir . ) ,
r e m a n d e d o n o th e r g r o u n d s , 5 3 7 U .S . 8 0 2 (2 0 0 2 ), o n a p p e a l a fte r r e m a n d , 3 5 9
F .3 d 3 5 6 ( 5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) .
8 4
2 6 6 F .3 d 6 4 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .
8 5
Id . a t 7 3 .
8 6
Id .
expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer.87

Although agency technical support staff had access to all com-
puters in the agency's offices, their maintenance of the comput-
ers was normally announced; the one unannounced visit to
Leventhal's computer was only to change the name of a serv-
er.88 Further, although agency Apersonnel might also need, at
times, to search for a document in an unattended computer,@
those searches were not so frequent, widespread, or extensive
as to constitute an atmosphere A`so open to fellow employees or
the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable.'@89 The
Leventhal court concluded that the A`[c]onstitutional protection
against unreasonable searches by the government does not
disappear merely because the government has the right to
make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as employer.'@90
On the other hand, agency policies and notices indicating that
computer use is not private or is subject to inspection or audit
have routinely served to defeat expectation of privacy claims.91
8 7
Id . a t 7 4 .
8 8
Id .
8 9
Id . a t 7 4 ( q u o t in g O 'C o n n o r , 4 8 0 U .S . a t 7 1 8 ( p lu r a lit y o p in io n ) ) .
9 0
Id . ( q u o t in g O 'C o n n o r , 4 8 0 U .S . a t 7 1 7 -1 8 ( p lu r a lit y o p in io n )
( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l ) ) .
9 1
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . A n g e v in e , 2 8 1 F .3 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 4 -3 5 ( 1 0 t h C ir .
2 0 0 2 ) ( u n iv e r s it y p o lic ie s a n d p r o c e d u r e s , w h ic h in t e r a lia r e s e r v e d th e r ig h t t o
r a n d o m ly a u d it In te r n e t u s e a n d to m o n it o r in d iv id u a ls s u s p e c te d o f c o m p u te r
m is u s e , p r e v e n t e d e m p lo y e e s f r o m h a v in g r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in d a ta
d o w n lo a d e d fr o m th e In t e r n e t a n d s t o r e d o n u n iv e r s it y c o m p u t e r s ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v .
S im o n s , 2 0 6 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 8 -9 9 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (in lig h t o f a g e n c y 's p o lic y t h a t
p e r m i t t e d i t t o Aa u d i t , i n s p e c t , a n d / o r m o n i t o r @ e m p l o y e e s ' u s e o f I n t e r n e t , e m p l o y e e
d id n o t h a v e r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in file s h e t r a n s fe r r e d fr o m th e
In t e r n e t o r in t h e h a r d d r iv e o f c o m p u te r h e u s e d ); W a s s o n v . S o n o m a J u n io r C o ll.
D is t . , 4 F . S u p p . 2 d 8 9 3 , 9 0 5 -0 6 (N .D . C a l. 1 9 9 7 ) (n o le g it im a t e e x p e c t a t io n o f
p r iv a c y in c o m p u t e r f i l e s b y e m p lo y e e b a s e d o n s c h o o l d is t r ic t 's p o lic y t h a t r e s e r v e d
r ig h t to Aa c c e s s a ll in f o r m a t io n s to r e d o n d i s t r i c t c o m p u t e r s @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v .
T a n k s le y , 5 0 M .J . 6 0 9 , 6 2 0 ( N -M . C t . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( s t a t in g th e r e is n o r e a -
s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y b y m ilit a r y o f f ic e r in o ffic e c o m p u t e r m a d e a v a ila b le t o
h im to p e r fo r m o f f ic ia l d u t ie s ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . M o n r o e , 5 2 M .J . 3 2 6 , 3 3 0 (C .A .A .F .
For example, a public employee had no reasonable expectation

of privacy in the contents of his government computer based on
his written acknowledgement of the agency's policy, which
prohibited personal use, expressly stated that employees had no
privacy rights, and that the employee consented to inspection
and audit of the computer.92
4. Data on Work ComputersCPrivate Employer
A similar analysis has been applied to work computers owned

by a private employer. For example, it has been held that there
is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a laptop provided by
an employer based on the employer's reserving the right to
inspect.93 Also, a person who has no ownership in a computer
that has been assigned by a company to another user has no
standing to challenge its search.94
2 0 0 0 ) ( n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in e m a il m e s s a g e s a n d e m a il b o x w h e n
g o v e r n m e n t -o w n e d e m a il s y s t e m h a d b a n n e r w a r n in g t h a t u s e r o f s y s t e m c o n s e n te d
to m o n it o r in g ) ; c f . B o h a c h v. R e n o , 9 3 2 F . S u p p . 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 4 -3 5 (D . N e v . 1 9 9 6 )
( s t a t in g th a t th e r e is n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in m e s s a g e s s e n t o v e r
c o m p u t e r iz e d p o lic e p a g in g s y s t e m d e s ig n e d fo r o ffic ia l c o m m u n ic a t io n s w h e n a ll
m e s s a g e s w e r e r e c o r d e d , a n d n o t i c e w a s g i v e n t h a t a l l m e s s a g e s w o u l d b e Al o g g e d
o n t h e n e t w o r k , @ a n d t h a t c e r t a in m e s s a g e s w e r e b a n n e d ) . B u t s e e U n it e d S t a t e s v .
L o n g , 6 1 M .J . 5 4 0 , 5 4 5 -4 7 ( N -M . C t . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( d e s p it e b a n n e r w a r n in g
u s e r o f p o s s ib le m o n it o r in g o f c o m p u t e r n e t w o r k s y s t e m , t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d r e a s o n -
a b le e x p e c t a t io n in p r iv a c y o f e m a il o n h e r c o m p u te r b e c a u s e th e s y s te m a d -
m in is t r a t o r d is c o v e r e d t h e e v id e n c e a s a r e s u lt o f a r e q u e s t b y la w e n fo r c e m e n t to
lo c a t e e v id e n c e r a t h e r t h a n a s a r e s u lt o f r o u t in e m o n it o r in g ) .
9 2
T h o r n , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 6 8 3 .
9 3
M u ic k v . G le n a y r e E le c . , 2 8 0 F .3 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 3 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . C f .
U n it e d S t a t e s v . B a ile y , 2 7 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 4 , 8 3 5 -3 7 (D . N e b . 2 0 0 3 ) (th e r e
w a s n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in w o r k c o m p u te r o w n e d b y e m p lo y e e 's
c o m p a n y w h e n c o m p a n y r e q u ir e d e m p lo y e e t o a s s e n t t o s e a r c h e v e r y t im e e m p lo y e e
a c c e s s e d c o m p u te r ).
9 4
U n it e d S t a t e s v . T r iu m p h C a p it a l G r o u p , I n c . , 2 1 1 F .R .D . 3 1 , 5 4 (D .
C o n n . 2 0 0 2 ) . C f . U n it e d S ta te s v . W o n g , 3 3 4 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 9 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
(d e fe n d a n t h a d n o s t a n d in g to c h a lle n g e s e a r c h o f fo r m e r e m p lo y e r 's la p t o p c o m -
p u te r ).
5. Information Obtained from Third Parties

If a third party discloses information to the government that

an individual has provided to that third party, the individual
typically will not have an interest protected by the Fourth
Amendment.95 This is based on the Court's view that no Fourth
Amendment protection exists where a wrongdoer has a mis-
placed belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his
wrongdoing will not reveal it.96 Such a Arisk,@ according to the
Court, is Aprobably inherent in the conditions of human soci-
ety.@97 This is consistent with the Supreme Court's view that
voluntary exposure to the public eliminates Fourth Amendment
protection.98
Thus, there is no Fourth Amendment protection99 against the
9 5
S e e , e .g ., M ille r v . U n it e d S ta te s , 4 2 5 U .S . 4 3 5 , 4 4 3 (1 9 7 6 )
( s t a t in g r u le ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . H o r o w it z , 8 0 6 F .2 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 (4 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 )
( n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in c o m p u t e r d a t a s o ld t o a n d s t o r e d o n a n o t h e r
c o m p a n y 's c o m p u te r ). T h e r e is a b u r g e o n in g a m o u n t o f in f o r m a t io n h e ld b y t h ir d
p a r t ie s a n d u s e d b y la w e n f o r c e m e n t . S e e D a n ie l J . S o lo v e , D ig it a l D o s s ie r s a n d t h e
D is s ip a t io n o f F o u r th A m e n d m e n t P r iv a c y , 7 5 S . C A L . L . R E V . 1 0 8 3 , 1 0 8 9 -1 1 0 1
( 2 0 0 2 ) ( c a t a lo g u in g t h is d e v e lo p m e n t ) . N u m e r o u s c o m m e n ta to r s h a v e a r g u e d fo r
F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t io n s e x t e n d in g to in f o r m a t io n h e ld b y t h ir d p a r t ie s . S e e ,
e . g , P a t r ic ia I . B e llia , S u r v e illa n c e L a w T h r o u g h C y b e r la w 's L e n s , 7 2 G E O . W A S H . L .
R E V . 1 3 7 5 , 1 4 0 3 -1 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( a r g u in g t h a t t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r i-
v a c y in c o m m u n ic a t io n s h e ld b y In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r s ) . S o m e , a s h a s P r o f e s s o r
L a F a v e , d is t in g u is h b e tw e e n th e typ e o f in f o r m a t io n g iv e n t o th e t h ir d p a r t y a n d th e
p u r p o s e s f o r w h ic h t h e t h ir d p a r t y h a s b e e n g iv e n t h e in f o r m a t io n a n d c o n c lu d e t h a t
a p e r s o n m a y r e t a in a r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in s o m e c ir c u m s t a n c e s .
W A Y N E R . L A F A V E , S E A R C H A N D S E IZ U R E ' 2 . 6 ( f ) a t 7 1 7 - 1 9 ( 4 t h e d . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e r e is a
r e c e n t c a s e , w h ic h is p e r h a p s a m e r e a b e r r a t io n , t h a t in d ic a t e s t h a t t h e C o u r t m a y
a d o p t a s im ila r a n a ly s is . S e e F e r g u s o n v . C it y o f C h a r le s t o n , 5 3 2 U .S . 6 7 , 7 8
( 2 0 0 1 ) ( f i n d in g a r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y b y a p a t ie n t in in f o r m a t io n c o n -
v e y e d to m e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l a n d s t a t in g : AT h e r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y
e n jo y e d b y th e t y p ic a l p a t ie n t u n d e r g o in g d ia g n o s t ic te s ts in a h o s p it a l is th a t th e
r e s u lt s o f th o s e te s ts w ill n o t b e s h a r e d w it h n o n m e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l w it h o u t h e r
c o n s e n t . @) .
9 6
H o f f a v . U n it e d S t a t e s , 3 8 5 U .S . 2 9 3 , 3 0 2 (1 9 6 6 ).
9 7
Id . a t 3 0 3 .
9 8
K a tz , 3 8 9 U .S . a t 3 5 1 .
9 9
C o n g r e s s h a s p r o v id e d s o m e s ta tu to r y p r o t e c t io n s fo r s to r e d
c o m m u n ic a t io n s in th e c o n t r o l o f t h ir d p a r t ie s . S e e , e . g . , O r in S . K e r r , A U s e r 's
disclosure of subscriber information by Internet service

providers.100 This rule also applies to email recovered from a
third party: once an email message has been received by anoth-
er party, the sender has no reasonable expectation of privacy in
its contents.101 This risk of exposure analysis also has been uni-
formly applied to statements made in Internet chat rooms.102 As
G u id e to th e S to r e d C o m m u n ic a t io n s A c t, a n d a L e g is la t o r 's G u id e to A m e n d in g It,
7 2 G E O . W A S H . L . R E V . 1 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . S im ila r ly , t h e in t e r c e p t io n o f c o m m u n ic a t io n s in
t r a n s it is la r g e ly g o v e r n e d b y a s t a t u t o r y f r a m e w o r k . S e e , e . g . , B e llia , s u p r a n o t e 9 5 ,
a t 1 3 8 3 -9 6 ( o u t lin in g t h e c o n s t it u t io n a l a n d s t a t u t o r y f r a m e w o r k ) .
1 0 0
S e e G u e s t v . L e is , 2 5 5 F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t in g t h a t
Ac o m p u t e r u s e r s d o n o t h a v e a le g it im a t e e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in t h e ir s u b s c r ib e r
i n f o r m a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e c o n v e y e d i t t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n Ct h e s y s t e m o p e r a t o r @) ;
U n it e d S ta te s v . C o x, 1 9 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 ( N . D . N . Y . 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t
th e r e is n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n in s u b s c r ib e r in f o r m a t io n p r o v id e d to In t e r n e t
s e r v ic e p r o v id e r ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . K e n n e d y, 8 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 0 (D . K a n .
2 0 0 0 ) ( n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in s u b s c r ib e r in f o r m a t io n ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s
v. H a m b r ic k , 5 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 7 -0 9 (W . D . V a . 1 9 9 9 ) (in d iv id u a l h a s n o
r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in h is n a m e , a d d r e s s , s o c ia l s e c u r it y n u m b e r ,
c r e d it c a r d n u m b e r , s c r e e n n a m e , a n d p r o o f o f In t e r n e t c o n n e c t io n o b t a in e d fr o m
In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r ) ; S t a t e v . E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d 4 3 2 , 4 4 0 -4 1 (N .J . 2 0 0 3 ) (p e r -
s o n h a d n o s t a n d in g to c h a lle n g e w a r r a n t t h a t o b t a in e d h is s u b s c r ib e r in f o r m a t io n
fr o m In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r ) ; H a u s e v . C o m m o n w e a lt h , 8 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 0 -1 2 (K y.
A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o s t a n d in g o f s u b s c r ib e r t o c h a lle n g e w a r r a n t t h a t o b t a in e d h is n a m e ,
a d d r e s s , a n d s c r e e n n a m e fr o m In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v .
O h n e s o r g e , 6 0 M .J . 9 4 6 , 9 4 9 -5 0 ( N -M . C t . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o r e a s o n a b le
e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in s u b s c r ib e r in f o r m a t io n g iv e n t o In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r ) .
1 0 1
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . C h a r b o n n e a u , 9 7 9 F . S u p p . 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 4
( S . D . O h io 1 9 9 7 ) ( Aa n e - m a i l m e s s a g e , l i k e a l e t t e r , c a n n o t b e a f f o r d e d a r e a s o n a b l e
e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y o n c e t h a t m e s s a g e i s r e c e i v e d @) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M a x w e l l , 4 5
M .J . 4 0 6 , 4 1 8 -1 9 ( C . A . A . F . 1 9 9 6 ) ( n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in e m a ils
a f t e r b e in g r e c e iv e d b y a n o t h e r p e r s o n ) ; C o m m o n w e a lt h v . P r o e t t o , 7 7 1 A .2 d 8 2 3 ,
8 3 1 (P a . S u p e r. 2 0 0 1 ) (n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in e m a il m e s s a g e s
s e n t to a n o th e r p e r s o n w h e n th a t p e r s o n fo r w a r d e d e m a il t o p o lic e ) . C f . U n it e d
S ta te s v . B a c h , 3 1 0 F .3 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 6 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e x p r e s s in g d o u b t b u t d e -
c lin in g to d e c id e w h e th e r th e r e w a s a r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in e m a il
r e c o v e r e d fr o m In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r ) .
1 0 2
S e e , e . g . , G u e s t v . L e is , 2 5 5 F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 3 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o
e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in m a t e r ia l p o s t e d o n b u lle t in b o a r d s y s t e m t h a t h a d d is c la im e r
one court has stated: AClearly, when Defendant engaged in chat

room conversations, he ran the risk of speaking with an under-
cover agent.@103
6. Joint Users; Password Protected Files
The question also arises where there are joint users of a

computer.104 By creating password-protected files, the creator
Aaffirmatively@ intends to exclude the joint user and others from
the files.105 Under such circumstances, it has been reasoned, it
cannot be said that the person has assumed the risk that the
joint user would permit others to search the files.106 On the
other hand, for example, stating that there is Ano generic
expectation of privacy for shared usage on computers,@ one
court has held that a student has no standing to suppress ses-
sion logs, indicating when he used a computer, and evidence on
hard drives of the university-owned computer that he used in a
computer lab on campus.107
t h a t p e r s o n a l c o m m u n ic a t io n s w e r e n o t p r iv a t e ); S t a t e v . E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d 4 3 2 ,
4 3 9 -4 0 (N .J . 2 0 0 3 ) (p e r s o n h a d n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in
Ap o r n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l h e u n l o o s e d i n t o t h e e l e c t r o n i c s t r e a m o f c o m m e r c e w h e n h e
e -m a ile d t w o p h o t o g r a p h s . . . t o f i f t y -o n e c h a t -r o o m s u b s c r i b e r s @) ; C o m m o n w e a l t h v .
P r o e tto , 7 7 1 A .2 d 8 2 3 , 8 3 1 (P a . S u p e r . 2 0 0 1 ) (n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f
p r iv a c y b y s u s p e c t in h is c h a t -r o o m c o n v e r s a t io n s ) . C f . U n it e d S ta te s v . M e e k , 3 6 6
F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 2 n .7 ( 9 t h C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c h a t r o o m p a r t ic ip a n t h a d n o s t a n d in g t o a s s e r t
p r iv a c y in t e r e s t o f m in o r 's o n lin e id e n t it y ) .
1 0 3
U n it e d S ta te s v . C h a r b o n n e a u , 9 7 9 F . S u p p . 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 5 (S .D .
O h io 1 9 9 7 ) ( n o e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in s t a t e m e n t s m a d e in p u b lic c h a t r o o m ) .
1 0 4
C f . U n it e d S ta te s v . L o n g o , 7 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 2 5 , 2 5 6 (W .D .N .Y .
1 9 9 9 ) ( n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y b y la w y e r in c o m p u t e r file s a c c e s s e d b y
e m p lo y e e in h e r s t a t u s a s le g a l s e c r e t a r y ) .
1 0 5
T r u lo c k v . F r e e h , 2 7 5 F .3 d 3 9 1 , 4 0 3 ( 4 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .
1 0 6
Id . ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S t a t e s v . S la n in a , 2 8 3 F .3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 6 ( 5 t h C ir . ) ,
r e m a n d e d o n o th e r g r o u n d s , 5 3 7 U .S . 8 0 2 (2 0 0 2 ), o n a p p e a l a fte r r e m a n d , 3 5 9
F .3 d 3 5 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( u s e o f p a s s w o r d s a n d lo c k in g o ffic e d o o r s to r e s t r ic t
e m p lo y e r 's a c c e s s t o c o m p u t e r f i l e s is e v id e n c e o f e m p lo y e e 's s u b je c t iv e e x p e c t a t io n
o f p r iv a c y in t h o s e file s ) .
1 0 7
U n it e d S t a t e s v . B u t le r , 1 5 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 8 2 , 8 4 -8 5 (D . M e . 2 0 0 1 ).
B. Private Searches and Seizures
1. In General
The Fourth Amendment is applicable only to governmental

activity; hence, private searches and seizures are unregulated
by it.108 Caselaw has detailed three aspects of the private
search doctrine that have significance when applied to searches
of computers. They are: 1) determining who is a government
agent; 2) ascertaining what constitutes replication of a private
search; and 3) determining under what circumstances the Acon-
text@ of a private search destroys any reasonable expectation of
privacy in objects not searched by the private party. These
latter two questions have been treated by the courts as analyti-
cally related and will, therefore, be treated together in this
article.
1 0 8
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . J a c o b s e n , 4 6 6 U .S . 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 (1 9 8 4 )
(T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t is Aw h o l l y in a p p lic a b le `to a s e a r c h o r s e iz u r e , e v e n a n
u n r e a s o n a b le o n e , e ffe c te d b y a p r iv a t e in d iv id u a l n o t a c t in g a s a n a g e n t o f th e
G o v e r n m e n t o r w i t h t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r k n o w l e d g e o f a n y g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l . ' @) .
2. Government Agents
The first difficulty is assessing when a person acts as a

governmental agent. The Supreme Court has stated that the
question whether a person is acting as an agent of the govern-
ment Anecessarily turns on the degree of the Government's
participation in the private party's activities, [which] can only
be resolved ìn light of all of the circumstances.'@109 Nonetheless,
two considerations for determining when a private party is a
government agent are often the focus of the inquiry used by
lower courts: (1) whether the government knew or acquiesced in
the private party's conduct; and (2) whether the private party's
purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his
or her own ends.110
Although a variety of factual instances have been litigated,111 a
1 0 9
S k in n e r v . R a ilw a y L a b o r E x e c u t iv e s ' A s s 'n , 4 8 9 U .S . 6 0 2 , 6 1 4 -1 5
( 1 9 8 9 ) ( c it a t io n o m it t e d ) ; s e e a ls o C o o lid g e v . N e w H a m p s h ir e , 4 0 3 U .S . 4 4 3 , 4 8 7
(1 9 7 1 ) (a p r iv a t e s e a r c h m a y b e c o n v e r te d in t o s ta te a c t io n if th e p r iv a te a c t o r is
Ar e g a r d e d a s h a v i n g a c t e d a s a n ` i n s t r u m e n t ' o r a g e n t o f t h e s t a t e @) .
1 1 0
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . S o d e r s t r a n d , 4 1 2 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 3
( 1 0 t h C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . S t e ig e r , 3 1 8 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 5 ( 1 1 t h C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ;
U n it e d S t a t e s v . G r im e s , 2 4 4 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; J a r r e t t v . C o m m o n -
w e a lt h , 5 9 4 S .E .2 d 2 9 5 , 3 0 0 -0 1 (V a . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); s e e a ls o U n it e d S ta te s v .
J a r r e tt, 3 3 8 F .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 4 -4 5 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( v ie w in g th e tw o p a r ts n o t a s a
At e s t @ b u t a s Af a c t o r s @) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 4 0 U .S . 1 1 8 5 (2 0 0 4 ).
1 1 1
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . E lly s o n , 3 2 6 F .3 d 5 2 2 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
( w o m a n liv in g in d e f e n d a n t 's h o u s e w a s n o t g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t w h e n s h e t u r n e d o v e r
to g o v e r n m e n t c o m p u te r d is k s c o n t a in in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y); U n it e d S ta te s v .
P o u ls e n , 4 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 5 ( 9 t h C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( m a n a g e r o f s e lf -s t o r a g e u n it n o t a c t -
in g a s g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t w h e n h e e n te r e d d e f e n d a n t 's u n it a n d s e iz e d , in t e r a lia ,
c o m p u t e r t a p e s ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . N e t t le s , 1 7 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 1 -9 2 (N .D .
Ill. 2 0 0 1 ) (F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t in a p p lic a b le t o h o t e l c le r k 's m o v in g o f c o m p u t e r e q u ip -
m e n t fro m h o te l r o o m t o c o m m o n s t o r a g e a r e a w h e n a c t io n s w e r e n o t a t b e h e s t o f
g o v e r n m e n t a g e n ts ); U n it e d S ta te s v . L o n g o , 7 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 2 5 , 2 5 8 -6 0
(W . D . N . Y . 1 9 9 9 ) ( l e g a l s e c r e t a r y 's o b s e r v a t io n s o f d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r f i l e s w e r e
w it h in s c o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t a n d n o t a s e a r c h ); S ta te v . L a s a g a , 8 4 8 A .2 d 1 1 4 9
( C o n n . 2 0 0 4 ) ( p r iv a t e u n iv e r s it y e m p lo y e e r e s p o n s ib le f o r m o n it o r in g c o m p u t e r u s e
common situation involves repairmen who report their findings

to the police. Courts have consistently held that observations by
private computer technicians made during their examination of
a computer given to them to repair do not implicate the Fourth
Amendment.112 For example, in United States v. Grimes,113 a re-
pairman, during the course of his examination of a computer
brought to the computer store for repair by Grimes' wife,
opened 17 files that he believed contained child pornography.114
After consultations with his supervisor, the technician called
the police.115 An officer then came to the store and viewed the
same 17 images.116 Without requesting the store employees to
search the computer any further, the officer reported the
findings to a FBI agent.117 The repairman's supervisor,
meanwhile, copied the 17 images onto a floppy disk, which he
gave to the police officer; the officer copied them before faxing
the images to the FBI agent, who later seized the computer
after obtaining a search warrant.118 Grimes claimed that the
store's search went beyond the permission given by his wife,
n o t a c t in g a s g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t w h e n h e d e te c te d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o n s c h o o l
c o m p u te r ).
1 1 2
S e e , e .g ., U n it e d S ta te s v . H a ll, 1 4 2 F .3 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 3 (7 th C ir .
1 9 9 8 ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . B a r t h , 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 2 -3 5 (W .D . T e x . 1 9 9 8 )
(F o u r th A m e n d m e n t in a p p lic a b le to c o m p u t e r r e p a ir m a n 's e x a m in a t io n o f c o m p u te r
w h e n p e r f o r m in g r e p a ir w o r k ) ; P e o p le v . P h illip s , 8 3 1 N .E .2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 2 (Ill. 2 0 0 5 )
(n o s e a r c h w h e n p o lic e s h o w n c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y v id e o o n c o m p u te r th a t h a d b e e n
p r e v io u s ly v ie w e d b y c o m p u t e r r e p a ir m a n d u r in g c o u r s e o f r e p a ir e ff o r t s ) ; P e o p le v .
E m e r s o n , 7 6 6 N .Y .S .2 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 6 -8 7 (N .Y . S u p . C t. 2 0 0 3 ) (n o r e a s o n a b le
e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y a n d h e n c e , n o s e a r c h , w h e n p r iv a t e c o m p u te r r e p a ir m a n
s h o w e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o m p u t e r file s t o p o lic e t h a t h e h a d p r e v io u s ly v ie w e d ) . C f .
R o g e r s v . S ta te , 1 1 3 S .W .3 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 7 -4 8 ( T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( f i n d in g n o r e a s o n a b le
e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in c o m p u te r file s th a t d e fe n d a n t h a d r e q u e s te d c o m p u te r
r e p a ir m a n t o c o p y ) .
1 1 3
2 4 4 F .3 d 3 7 5 ( 5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .
1 1 4
G r im e s , 2 4 4 F .3 d a t 3 7 7 -8 3 .
1 1 5
Id . a t 3 7 8 .
1 1 6
Id .
1 1 7
Id .
1 1 8
Id .
thereby invalidating any evidence that flowed from the

search.119 The court found that the initial search, being private
in nature, was not subject to Fourth Amendment applicabili-
ty.120 It reasoned that the government was not involved in the
discovery of the 17 images nor were the private parties acting
with the intent to assist law enforcement officials.121 The court
believed that the pre-warrant images viewed by the police
officer and the FBI agent were Awithin the scope of the original
private-party search@ and Awere in an area where Grimes no
longer possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy.@122
On the other hand, it has been held, when a repairman copied
files based on a state trooper's request, a search within the
meaning of the Amendment occurred.123 Similarly, although a
private computer repairman was acting in a private capacity
when he observed the first file containing child pornography,
after he related his observations to a FBI agent who asked him
to copy the entire hard drive, his observations of additional files
were as a government agent.124
Other common searches involve hackers.125 An anonymous
computer hacker, known as AUnknownuser,@ has generated
several prosecutions for possession of child pornography stem-
1 1 9
Id . a t 3 8 3 .
1 2 0
Id .
1 2 1
Id .
1 2 2
Id .
1 2 3
U n it e d S t a t e s v . H a ll, 1 4 2 F .3 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 3 ( 7 t h C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a ls o
U n it e d S ta te s v . B a r t h , 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 6 (W .D . T e x . 1 9 9 8 ) (c o m p u te r
r e p a ir m a n 's fir s t v ie w in g o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y n o t a s e a r c h b u t h is la t e r v ie w in g o f
a d d it io n a l file s a f t e r r e p o r t in g h is o b s e r v a t io n t o p o lic e w a s a s g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t ) .
1 2 4
B a rth , 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 9 3 5 -3 6 . B u t s e e U n it e d S ta te s v.
P e te r s o n , 2 9 4 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 9 7 , 8 0 0 , 8 0 5 ( D . S . C . 2 0 0 3 ) ( t e c h n ic ia n 's o b s e r v a t io n
o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y d u r in g r e p a ir o f c o m p u t e r w a s n o t a s a g e n t o f g o v e r n m e n t , d e -
s p it e S o u th C a r o lin a s ta tu te r e q u ir in g t e c h n ic ia n to r e p o r t s u c h o b s e r v a t io n s a n d
d e s p it e th e fa c t th a t, a fte r th e t e c h n ic ia n 's in it ia l o b s e r v a t io n s , h e d e c id e d to o p e n
a d d it io n a l file s b e c a u s e o f t h a t le g a l r e q u ir e m e n t ) .
1 2 5
S e e M o n ic a R . S h a h , N o te , T h e C a s e fo r a S t a t u t o r y S u p p r e s s io n
R e m e d y to R e g u la t e Ille g a l P r iv a t e P a r t y S e a r c h e s , 1 0 5 C O L U M . L . R E V . 2 5 0 (2 0 0 5 )
( d is c u s s in g a b ilit y o f p r iv a t e c it iz e n s t o h a c k in t o c o m p u t e r s o f o t h e r p e r s o n s ) .
ming from his hacking activities.126 Unknownuser obtained

access to the computers via a Trojan horse program that he
attached to a picture he posted to a news group frequented by
persons interested in pornography. When the picture was
downloaded, the Trojan horse program was also downloaded,
allowing Unknownuser to gain access to the computers.127 After
finding child pornography, Unknownuser reported those find-
ings to law enforcement authorities.
Although Unknownuser was truly unknown to law enforce-
ment prior to his first report, thus making the conclusion that
he was not a government agent an easy one,128 Unknownuser's
subsequent efforts were preceded by an FBI agent's thanking
him for his assistance in the first case and by the comment: AIf
you want to bring other information forward, I am available.@129
Several months later, Unknownuser produced information
about another child molester.130 Two different appellate courts
subsequently rejected the claim that Unknownuser acted as a
government agent based on the FBI agent's comments, rea-
soning that, although Unknownuser was motivated to aid law
enforcement, the government did not involve itself in
Unknownuser's search sufficiently to transform it into govern-
mental action.131 Those courts asserted that mere acquiescence
was insufficient; rather, the government must either partici-
pate in or affirmatively encourage the search.132 The mere ex-
pression of gratitude did not create an agency relationship;
otherwise, as one court stated, Avirtually any Government ex-
1 2 6
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . J a r r e t t , 3 3 8 F .3 d 3 3 9 ( 4 t h C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; U n it e d
S ta te s v . S t e ig e r , 3 1 8 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 2 -4 6 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o s e a r c h w h e n
p r iv a t e h a c k e r tu r n e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o v e r to p o lic e th a t h a c k e r fo u n d b y
a c c e s s in g d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r ) ; J a r r e t t v . C o m m o n w e a lt h , 5 9 4 S .E .2 d 2 9 5 , 3 0 1 -
0 3 (V a . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (s a m e ).
1 2 7
J a r r e tt, 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 3 4 1 .
1 2 8
S t e ig e r , 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 5 .
1 2 9
J a r r e tt, 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 3 4 1 .
1 3 0
Id . a t 3 4 2 .
1 3 1
Id . a t 3 4 5 ; J a r r e t t , 5 9 4 S .E .2 d a t 3 0 2 -0 3 .
1 3 2
J a r r e tt, 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 3 4 5 .
pression of gratitude for assistance well prior to an investiga-

tion would effectively transform any subsequent private search
by the party into a Government search.@133 The court noted that
the government was under no affirmative obligation to
discourage Unknownuser from hacking.134
Subsequent to Unknownuser's providing the information that
formed the basis of the second and third prosecutions, an FBI
agent began a series of e-mail exchanges with Unknownuser,
which one appellate court has described as the Aproverbial
`wink and a nod.'@135 The agent informed Unknownuser that
she could not ask him to search for additional child
pornographers because that would make him an agent of the
government and make the information he obtained
unuseable.136 The agent further advised that Unknownuser
should feel free to send any additional information he obtained
and that he would not be prosecuted for hacking.137 The Fourth
Circuit viewed those exchanges as Aprobably@ the type of gov-
ernment involvement that would create an agency relation-
ship.138
1 3 3
Id . a t 3 4 6 .
1 3 4
Id . a t 3 4 7 .
1 3 5
Id . a t 3 4 3 .
1 3 6
Id .
1 3 7
Id .
1 3 8
Id . a t 3 4 6 .
3. Replication and AContext@ Issues
A government search that merely replicates a previous private

one is not a Asearch@ within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment; rather, the Amendment applies only to the extent
that the government has exceeded the scope of the private
search.139 The reasoning behind this rule, generally speaking, is
that the original private party search extinguishes any rea-
sonable expectation of privacy in the object searched.140 The
application of these principles in the computer context has
sometimes led to questionable results. For example, although a
computer repairman detained a computer for an extra day
based on the FBI's request to do so to allow time for the FBI to
obtain a search warrant, one court maintained that the deten-
tion was not attributable to the government.141
There are also situations where the Acontext@ in which an
object is found may lead some courts to the conclusion that
there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in that object.142
According to this view, due to the private search, there may not
be any legitimate expectation of privacy remaining in aspects of
the object that had not been examined during that private
search. Under such circumstances, it might be concluded that
the government expansion of the private intrusion does not
invade any protected interest, which is to say that there is no
1 3 9
U n it e d S t a t e s v . J a c o b s e n , 4 6 6 U .S . 1 0 9 , 1 1 5 (1 9 8 4 ).
1 4 0
Id . a t 1 2 0 -2 1 .
1 4 1
U n it e d S t a t e s v . H a ll, 1 4 2 F .3 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 4 -9 5 ( 7 t h C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .
1 4 2
S e e , e .g ., J a c o b s e n , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 1 2 1 ( a lt h o u g h p r iv a t e p a r ty h a d
n o t p h y s ic a lly e x a m in e d c o n t e n t s o f p a c k a g e c o n t a in in g w h it e p o w d e r , p a c k a g e c o u ld
n o lo n g e r s u p p o r t r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y ) ; id . a t 1 4 3 (B r e n n a n , J .,
d is s e n t in g ) ( o b s e r v in g th a t th e Ac o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e w h i t e p o w d e r w a s f o u n d @ u n d e r
h is v ie w o f t h e f a c t s Ac o u l d n o t s u p p o r t a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y @ a n d t h a t
th e r e w a s a A` v i r t u a l c e r t a i n t y ' @ t h a t t h e D E A a g e n t c o u ld id e n t ify it ) . C f . T e x a s v .
B r o w n , 4 6 0 U .S . 7 3 0 , 7 4 3 (1 9 8 3 ) ( p lu r a lit y o p in io n ) ( b a llo o n h a d Ad i s t i n c t i v e
c h a r a c t e r [ t h a t ] s p o k e v o l u m e s a s t o i t s c o n t e n t Bp a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e t r a i n e d e y e o f t h e
o f f i c e r @) .
search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Frankly,

the caselaw is less than clear whether this principle is firmly
establishedBat least in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The analysis of these principles begins with Walter v. United
States.143 In that case, 12 packages were delivered to the wrong
company.144 Employees opened the packages; inside the
packages were 871 boxes of 8-millimeter film.145 On one side of
each box Awere suggestive drawings, and on the other were
explicit descriptions of the contents.@146 One employee attempt-
1 4 3
4 4 7 U .S . 6 4 9 (1 9 8 0 ).
1 4 4
Id . a t 6 5 1 .
1 4 5
Id . a t 6 5 2 .
1 4 6
Id . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t d id n o t d e t a il t h e in f o r m a t io n o n th e b o x e s .
T h e lo w e r c o u r t , h o w e v e r , s t a t e d t h a t A[ t ] h e to p o f e a c h film b o x s h o w e d th e n a m e
` D a v id 's B o y s ' a n d a d r a w in g o f t w o n u d e m a le s e m b r a c in g a n d k is s in g ; o n t h e b a c k
o f e a c h w e r e th e t it le o f th e in d iv id u a l m o v ie a n d a d e t a ile d d e s c r ip t io n , in e x p lic it
te r m s , o f th e b iz a r r e h o m o s e x u a l a c t s d e p ic t e d in th e film . @ U n it e d S t a t e s v . S a n d -
e r s , 5 9 2 F .2 d 7 8 8 , 7 9 1 ( 5 t h C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) . T h e c o u r t d e t a ile d :
T h e in d ic t m e n t lis t e d fiv e o f t h e 2 5 AD a v i d ' s B o y s @ t i t l e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e s h i p -
m e n t. T h e in d iv id u a l b o x e s c o n t a in in g AL o o k a t t h e B ir d ie @ s a id t h a t C o r b e t t
r e a lly g e t s tu r n e d o n w h e n R ic h c o m e s o v e r fo r a p h o to s e s s io n . I n th e
a Cc l o s e - u p s y o u w o n 't b e lie v e ! T h e h ig h lig h t o f t h e m o v ie h a p p e n s w h e n
C o r b e t t m a s t u r b a t e s a n d Co n R i c h ' s f a c e ! T h i s i s a f l i c k y o u w i l l n o t f o r g e t .
AT h e C l e a n U p ( 3 w h it e ) @ b o x e s r e a d t h a t L e n n y a n d E r ic t u r n e a c h o t h e r o n
a n d w h e n y o u s e e th e s e g o o d lo o k in g s t u d s y o u 'll k n o w w h y ! ! ! T h e a c t io n
g e t s h e a v y a n d t h e n L e s e n t e r s t h e p ic t u r e . g a lo r e a n d L e s c le a n s it u p lik e
y o u 'v e n e v e r s e e n . G r e a t c lo s e - u p s !
T h e AB l a c k R a p e @ (1 b lk . 1 w h t.) b o x e s s ta te d t h a t B ig B la c k L a n c e a s
1 1 Cb u t i t d o e s n ' t t a k e lo n g b e fo r e th e s m a ll s le n d e r L a r r y is t a k in g it a ll
r ig h t u p t h e ! G o o d t o n g u e a c t io n a n d a s u r p r is e t h a t y o u w o n 't b e lie v e . Y o u
w ill lo v e t h e c lo s e -u p a c t io n . T h e b o x e s c o n t a in in g AT h e M a s s a g e @
e x p la in e d t h a t A n g e lo th e m a s s e u r g e ts tu r n e d o n a s h e g iv e s T o m m y a
r u b d o w n . A n g e lo 's e x p e r t t o n g u e & h a n d s s o o n h a v e T o m m y 's h a r d & e x -
c it e d . B u t h e w a n t s it t h e G r e e k w a y a n d A n g ie c o m p lie s . T h e n h e b e a u t ifu l
o n T o m m y 's f a c e ! T h is is o n e o f th e b e s t c lo s e -u p s o f fr e n c h lo v e y o u w ill
e v e r s e e ! !
F in a lly , t h e AL o v i n g H a n d s @ b o x e s s a id th a t M u r r a y a n d C a r l a r e w e ll in t o
t h e ir lo v e s e s s io n w h e n B e n e n te r s th e r o o m . H e w ill s h o w y o u h is lo v in g
h a n d s a s h e s h o v e s th e m w it h h is a r m s (ju s t s h o r t o f h is e lb o w s ! ) r ig h t u p
ed to hold one or two of the films up to the light, but was unable
to observe the content of the films.147 The recipients contacted
federal agents, who viewed the films with a projector without
first obtaining a warrant to search.
Although a majority of the Court concluded that the viewing of
the films using a projector violated the Fourth Amendment,
there was no majority opinion. In an opinion announcing the
judgment of the Court, authored by Justice Stevens and joined
by only one other Justice, Stevens asserted that the officers
violated the Fourth Amendment because they exceeded the
scope of the private search.148 He reasoned that, because the
private party had not actually viewed the films, projecting Athe
films was a significant expansion of the search that had been
conducted previously by a private party and therefore must be
characterized as a separate search.@149 This was despite the fact
that Athe nature of the contents of these films was indicated by
descriptive material on their individual containers.@150 Stevens
maintained:
[ T ] h e la b e ls o n t h e film b o x e s g a v e [th e fe d e r a l a g e n ts ]
p r o b a b le c a u s e t o b e lie v e t h a t t h e film s w e r e o b s c e n e a n d
t h a t t h e ir s h ip m e n t in in t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e h a d o ffe n d e d th e
f e d e r a l c r im in a l c o d e . B u t t h e la b e ls w e r e n o t s u ffic ie n t to
s u p p o r t a c o n v ic t io n a n d w e r e n o t m e n t io n e d in th e
in d ic t m e n t . F u r t h e r in v e s t ig a t io n Bt h a t i s t o s a y , a s e a r c h o f
t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e f i l m s Bw a s n e c e s s a r y in o r d e r t o o b t a in
h is f r ie n d s ' a h ! ! W h ile t h e y m a s t u r b a t e ! It is a t r u e m a s t e r p ie c e fo r th e
a v id c o n n o is s e u r ! ! ( C e r t a in p a r t ic u la r ly s a la c io u s w o r d s h a v e b e e n d e le t e d
b y t h e w r it e r o f t h is o p in io n , a s in d ic a t e d . )
Id . a t 7 9 3 n .5 .
1 4 7
W a lt e r , 4 4 7 U .S . a t 6 5 1 .
1 4 8
Id . a t 6 5 7 . J u s t ic e W h it e , in a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n jo in e d b y J u s t ic e
B r e n n a n , b e lie v e d t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t w a s v io la t e d b e c a u s e th e a g e n ts h a d n o t
o b t a in e d a w a r r a n t , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e t h e r t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h w a s e x -
c e e d e d . Id . a t 6 6 0 -6 2 . J u s t ic e M a r s h a ll c o n c u r r e d in t h e ju d g m e n t b u t d id n o t w r it e
a n o p in io n . Id . a t 6 6 0 .
1 4 9
Id . a t 6 5 7 .
1 5 0
Id . a t 6 5 4 .
1 5 1
t h e e v id e n c e w h ic h w a s t o b e u s e d a t t r ia l.
Stevens rejected the government's claim Athat because the

packages had been opened by a private party, thereby exposing
the descriptive labels on the boxes, petitioners no longer had
any reasonable expectation of privacy in the films.@152 He be-
lieved that A[t]he private search merely frustrated that expecta-
tion in part. It did not simply strip the remaining unfrustrated
portion of that expectation of all Fourth Amendment protec-
tion.@153 In a curious footnote, however, Justice Stevens opined
that Aif a gun case is delivered to a carrier, there could then be
no expectation that the contents would remain private, but if
the gun case were enclosed in a locked suitcase, the shipper
would surely expect that the privacy of its contents would be
respected.@154 The gun case example indicates that Stevens
would hold that, in at least some circumstances where the
objects inside the container can be ascertained by information
outside the container, there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy inside the container. Stevens, however, made no at-
tempt to reconcile the gun case example with the facts or his
analysis in Walter.155
The four dissenters in Walter believed that no legitimate
expectation of privacy remained in the contents of the packages
by the time the FBI received them because the private search
had Aclearly revealed the nature of their contents.@156 According-
ly, the viewing of the films by the FBI did not change the na-
ture of the search and was not an additional search.157 The
1 5 1
Id .
1 5 2
Id . a t 6 5 8 .
1 5 3
Id . a t 6 5 9 .
1 5 4
Id . a t 6 5 8 n .1 2 ( c it a t io n o m it t e d ) .
1 5 5
T h e g u n c a s e h a s b e e n r e p e a t e d s e v e r a l t im e s t o illu s t r a t e t h e s it u a -
t io n w h e r e th e Av e r y n a tu r e @ o f th e c o n t a in e r Ac a n n o t s u p p o r t a n y r e a s o n a b le
e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y b e c a u s e [th e ] c o n te n ts c a n b e in f e r r e d fr o m [th e ] o u tw a r d
a p p e a r a n c e .@ A r k a n s a s v . S a n d e r s , 4 4 2 U .S . 7 5 3 , 7 6 4 -6 5 n .1 3 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; s e e a ls o
J a c o b s e n , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 1 2 1 ( r e p e a t in g t h e g u n c a s e e x a m p le ) .
1 5 6
W a lt e r , 4 4 7 U .S . a t 6 6 3 ( B la c k m u n , J . d is s e n t in g ) .
1 5 7
Id . a t 6 6 3 -6 4 ( c it a t io n o m it t e d ) .
dissent also addressed Stevens' gun case hypothetical: AThe

films in question were in a state no different from Mr. Justice
Stevens' hypothetical gun case when they reached the FBI.
Their contents were obvious from `the condition of the package,'
. . . and those contents had been exposed as a result of a purely
private search that did not implicate the Fourth
Amendment.@158
A perplexing question involving searches of computers, which
has led to contradictory results, involves whether the scope of
the private party search has been exceeded when law
enforcement agents open additional files that had not been
opened in the preceding private search. This question is similar
to the one that so divided the Court in Walter. Some courts
have held that the determinative inquiry is not the mere open-
ing of additional files.159 On the other hand, in United States v.
Barth,160 the court rejected the government's contention that,
once a private computer repairman opened a file containing an
image of child pornography, Barth lost his reasonable expecta-
tion of privacy in the other files on the computer's hard drive,
reasoning that the copying of the entire contents of the hard
drive and the review of those files by law enforcement Afar
exceeded@ the private viewings.161
In this context, United States v. Runyan162 is particularly
instructive. In that case, the defendant's estranged wife and
1 5 8
Id . a t 6 6 5 .
1 5 9
S e e , e . g . , P e o p le v . E m e r s o n , 7 6 6 N .Y .S .2 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 8 (N .Y . S u p .
C t . 2 0 0 3 ) ( Aw h e n a n e a r lie r , p r iv a t e s e a r c h o p e n s c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y im a g e s o n a
h a r d d r iv e in id e n t ifie d c o m p u t e r file f o ld e r s w h ic h t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r f o u n d r e p le t e
w it h file t it le s p la in ly s u g g e s t in g im a g e s o f lik e k in d , d e f e n d a n t r e t a in s n o r e a s o n a b le
e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y w it h r e s p e c t to a d d it io n a l s u c h im a g e file s in th e s a m e tw o
c o m p u t e r f i l e f o l d e r s @) . C f . S t a t e v . L a s a g a , 8 4 8 A .2 d 1 1 4 9 ( C o n n . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d e c lin in g
t o d e t e r m in e if p o lic e e x c e e d e d s c o p e o f p r iv a t e s e a r c h w h e n t h e y o p e n e d a d d it io n a l
file s b e c a u s e , e v e n i f t h o s e file s w e r e d is r e g a r d e d , w a r r a n t b a s e d o n p r o b a b le c a u s e
to s e a r c h ).
1 6 0
2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 2 9 (W .D . T e x . 1 9 9 8 ).
1 6 1
Id . a t 9 3 5 -3 7 .
1 6 2
2 7 5 F .3 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 3 -5 7 ( 5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .
her companions removed from Runyan's ranch various data

storage devices and turned them over to the police. The private
parties had examined only a randomly selected assortment of
the floppy disks and CDs and they did not view any of the ZIP
disks. The government agents examined every one of the floppy
disks, ZIP disks, and CDs.163
The Runyan court noted that there are two different analytical
approaches to the problem posed by the facts. One line of
authority holds that Aa police search exceeds the scope of a prior
private search when the police open a container that the
private searchers did not open.@164 A second line, according to
the court, is reflected in United States v. Bowman:165
In B o w m a n , a n a ir lin e e m p lo y e e o p e n e d a n u n c la im e d s u it -
c a s e a n d fo u n d fiv e id e n t ic a l b u n d le s w r a p p e d in t o w e ls a n d
c lo t h in g T h e e m p lo y e e o p e n e d o n e b u n d le a n d f o u n d a w h it e
p o w d e r y s u b s ta n c e w r a p p e d in p la s t ic a n d d u c t t a p e . H e
c o n ta c te d a fe d e r a l n a r c o t ic s a g e n t , w h o id e n t ifie d t h e e x -
p o s e d b u n d le a s a k ilo b r ic k o f c o c a in e a n d t h e n o p e n e d t h e
o t h e r b u n d le s , w h ic h a ls o c o n t a in e d k ilo b r ic k s o f c o c a in e .
T h e c o u r t h e ld t h a t t h e a g e n t d id n o t a c t im p r o p e r ly in f a ilin g
to s e c u r e a w a r r a n t t o u n w r a p t h e r e m a in in g id e n t ic a l
b u n d le s , r e a s o n in g t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e c o c a in e in t h e
e x p o s e d b u n d le A` s p o k e v o l u m e s a s t o [ t h e ] c o n t e n t s [ o f t h e
r e m a in in g b u n d l e s ] Cp a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e t r a i n e d e y e o f t h e
o f f i c e r . ' @1 6 6
Runyan attempted to harmonize the two approaches:

[C ]o n fir m a t io n o f p r io r k n o w le d g e d o e s n o t c o n s t it u t e
e x c e e d in g t h e s c o p e o f a p r iv a t e s e a r c h . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f a
s e a r c h in v o lv in g a n u m b e r o f c lo s e d c o n t a in e r s , t h is
s u g g e s ts th a t o p e n in g a c o n t a in e r t h a t w a s n o t o p e n e d b y
p r iv a te s e a r c h e r s w o u ld n o t n e c e s s a r ily b e p r o b le m a t ic if
th e p o lic e k n e w w it h s u b s t a n t ia l c e r t a in t y , b a s e d o n t h e
s ta te m e n ts o f th e p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s , t h e ir r e p lic a t io n o f t h e
1 6 3
Id . a t 4 6 1 -6 2 .
1 6 4
Id . a t 4 6 2 .
1 6 5
9 0 7 F .2 d 6 3 ( 8 t h C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) .
1 6 6
2 7 5 F .3 d a t 4 6 2 -6 3 ( q u o t in g B o w m a n , 9 0 7 F .2 d a t 6 5 ).
p r iv a t e s e a r c h , a n d t h e ir e x p e r t is e , w h a t th e y w o u ld fin d
in s id e . S u c h a n Ae x p a n s i o n @ o f th e p r iv a t e s e a r c h p r o v id e s
t h e p o lic e w it h n o a d d it io n a l k n o w le d g e th a t th e y d id n o t a l-
r e a d y o b t a in fr o m th e u n d e r ly in g p r iv a te s e a r c h a n d
fr u s t r a te s n o e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y th a t h a s n o t a lr e a d y
b e e n fr u s t r a te d .1 6 7
Applying this guideline to the facts of the case before it, the
Runyan court believed that the police's pre-warrant exami-
nation of the disks not opened by the private parties clearly
exceeded the scope of the private search:
T h e p o lic e c o u ld n o t h a v e c o n c lu d e d w it h s u b s t a n t ia l c e r t a in -
t y t h a t a ll o f t h e d is k s c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y b a s e d o n
k n o w le d g e o b t a in e d f r o m t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s , in f o r m a t io n
in p la in v ie w , o r t h e ir o w n e x p e r t is e . T h e r e w a s n o t h in g o n
t h e o u t s id e o f a n y d is k in d ic a t in g it s c o n t e n t s . . . . In d e e d ,
[ t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s ] c o u ld n o t h a v e k n o w n t h e c o n t e n t s o f
a n y o f t h e Z IP d is k s , a s [ t h e y ] d id n o t u s e h a r d w a r e c a p a b le
o f r e a d in g t h e s e d is k s in t h e ir p r iv a t e s e a r c h . T h e m e r e f a c t
t h a t t h e d is k s t h a t [ t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s ] d id n o t e x a m in e
w e r e f o u n d in t h e s a m e lo c a t io n in R u n y a n 's r e s id e n c e a s
t h e d is k s t h e y d id e x a m in e is in s u ffic ie n t t o e s t a b lis h w it h
s u b s t a n t ia l c e r t a in t y t h a t a ll o f t h e s t o r a g e m e d ia in q u e s t io n
c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y . 1 6 8
Turning to the question whether the police exceeded the scope

of the private search because they opened more files on each of
the disks than examined by the private searchers, while the
record was not entirely clear whether the police actually did so,
the court concluded that it would not have been constitutionally
problematic for the police to have examined more files than did
the private searchers.169 The court reasoned:
[ T ] h e p o lic e d o n o t e x c e e d t h e s c o p e o f a p r io r p r iv a t e
s e a r c h w h e n t h e y e x a m in e t h e s a m e m a t e r ia ls t h a t w e r e
1 6 7
Id . a t 4 6 3 ( c it a t io n s o m it t e d ) .
1 6 8
Id . a t 4 6 4 .
1 6 9
Id .
e x a m in e d b y t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s , b u t t h e y e x a m in e t h e s e
m a t e r ia ls m o r e t h o r o u g h ly t h a n d id t h e p r iv a t e p a r t ie s . I n
t h e c o n t e x t o f a c lo s e d c o n t a in e r s e a r c h , t h is m e a n s t h a t
t h e p o lic e d o n o t e x c e e d t h e p r iv a t e s e a r c h w h e n t h e y
e x a m in e m o r e it e m s w it h in a c lo s e d c o n t a in e r t h a n d id t h e
p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s . . . . [ A ] n in d iv id u a l's e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y
in t h e c o n t e n t s o f a c o n t a in e r h a s a lr e a d y b e e n c o m -
p r o m is e d i f t h a t c o n t a in e r w a s o p e n e d a n d e x a m in e d b y
p r iv a t e s e a r c h e r s [ . ] T h u s , t h e p o lic e d o n o t e n g a g e in a n e w
As e a r c h @ f o r F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p u r p o s e s e a c h t i m e t h e y e x -
a m in e a p a r t ic u la r it e m f o u n d w it h in t h e c o n t a in e r . 1 7 0
Runyan's approach is open to criticism. One can take issue

with the court's view of what the appropriate container is:
should it be the computer; an individual disk; the directory; the
file folders; or each individual file? Runyan seems to point to
each disk as the container and, hence, once that disk is opened
by the private party, anything within it that the police examine
is within the scope of the private search. The basis for the
court's analysis is far from clear: why is not the entire hard
drive of a computer the container and, once that container is
opened by a private party, all data would be within that
search's scope; on the other hand, why is not each data file a
container, given that each must be separately Aopened@ to view
the file's contents?
One could draw an analogy to a filing cabinet in the physical
world. Each filing cabinet may have one or more drawers and
have a number of file folders in each drawer. For example,
there may be a group of folders entitled tax records, each for a
different year. If a private party opens Atax records 2004,@ un-
der Runyan it would seem that the tax records for other years
may be opened by government agents and not be labeled a
search. This approach is undoubtedly incorrect. Nothing in
previous Supreme Court caselaw supports viewing the entire
filing cabinet as a container that permits wholesale searches of
all the files therein once a private party opens one of them.171 If
1 7 0
Id . a t 4 6 4 -6 5 .
1 7 1
C f . U n it e d S ta te s v . K n o ll, 1 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 2 1 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 )
computers are containers that hold various forms of informa-

tion,172 then there is no principled distinction between them and
a metal filing cabinet when applying the private search
doctrine. This is to say that the rules regulating containers in
the bricks and mortar world have equal applicability to com-
puter searches. Accordingly, a computer should be viewed as a
physical container with a series of electronic Acontainers@Bthat
is, directories, folders, and files that must be each separately
opened. Each separate opening is the examination of a new
container.
Also, to the extent that Runyan grounds its analysis on the
belief that the mere opening of additional files within a contain-
er already partially examined by a private party does not
exceed the scope of that private search because the Acontainer@
no longer supports a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is
little Supreme Court jurisprudence to support that view. Only
in United States v. Jacobsen173 has the Supreme Court held that
the government activities were not a search, even though the
government activity exceeded the private search. In that case, a
Federal Express employee opened a damaged package and
found several transparent plastic bags of white powder inside a
closed tube wrapped in crumpled newspaper. The employee put
the bags back in the tube, put the tube and the newspapers
back in the box, and then summoned federal agents. The agent
who responded opened the box, unpacked the bags of white
powder, and performed a chemical field test confirming that the
white powder was cocaine.174 Putting aside the chemical test-
ing, which raised a separate issue,175 the Court found that the
agent's actions did not implicate the Fourth Amendment
because the agent's actions in removing the plastic bags from
the tube and visually inspecting their contents Aenabled the
( v ie w in g e a c h c lo s e d o p a q u e file f o ld e r a s c lo s e d c o n t a in e r ) .
1 7 2
S e e d is c u s s io n s u p r a a t 1 9 7 -2 2 0 .
1 7 3
4 6 6 U .S . 1 0 9 (1 9 8 4 ).
1 7 4
Id . a t 1 1 1 -1 2 .
1 7 5
S e e id . a t 1 2 3 .
agent to learn nothing that had not previously been learned

during the private search.@176 Although the private party had
not physically examined the contents of the package containing
the white powder, the Court asserted that the package could no
longer support a reasonable expectation of privacy.177 The Court
concluded that the visual inspection was not a Asearch@ because
it did not infringe Aany constitutionally protected privacy
interest that had not already been frustrated as the result of
private conduct.@178 By merely replicating the private party's
actions, the agents in Jacobsen observed white powder in a
transparent container. They learned nothing more from its
mere removal, which is to say that no reasonable expectation of
privacy was invaded by their actions. This is in marked
contrast to Runyan, where the container did not disclose its
contents prior to its opening and, as a result, the police did
learn something new when the files were opened.
This leaves the difficult decision of Walter as possible support
for the Runyan viewpoint. Clearly, the Court has changed since
Walter and a majority might be willing to adopt the Walter
dissent's view that context does sometimes destroy an ex-
pectation of privacy, even if the private party had not opened
the same container as the governmental authorities. On the
other hand, if Justice Stevens' view in Walter is adopted by a
majority of the Court, it is difficult to envision a situation
where the police could open a computer file unopened by the
private party without exceeding the scope of that private
search. The boxes in Walter certainly gave the police a high
degree of confidence that they contained pornography.179 So too
would a private party search that opened some files with sug-
gestive names that were in a folder with a series of other files.
1 7 6
Id . a t 1 2 0 .
1 7 7
Id . a t 1 2 1 ; s e e a ls o id . a t 1 4 2 ( B r e n n a n , J . , d is s e n t in g ) ( o b s e r v in g
th a t th e Ac o n t e x t i n w h ic h th e w h it e p o w d e r w a s fo u n d @ u n d e r h is v ie w o f th e fa c ts
Ac o u l d n o t s u p p o r t a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y @ a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s a A` v i r t u a l
c e r t a i n t y '@ t h a t t h e D E A a g e n t c o u l d i d e n t i f y i t ) .
1 7 8
Id . a t 1 2 6 .
1 7 9
S e e s u p r a n o t e s 1 4 3 -4 7 a n d a c c o m p a n y in g t e x t .
Thus, for example, if a private party opened files labeled Apre-

teen.female9.rape@, Apreteen.female10.rape@, and pre-
teen.female11.rape,@ and discovered images of young girls being
raped, if there were additional files in the same folder labeled
Apreteen.female12.rape@ and Apreteen.female13.rape@, I would
think that most courts would easily conclude that the police had
probable cause to believe that the A12@ and A13@ files also
depicted images of child pornography. But under Stevens' view
in Walter, mere probable causeBor even Asubstantial certain-
ty@Bdoes not eliminate Fourth Amendment applicability.
This, it seems to me, is the proper approach. Probable cause is
the usual level of suspicion that justifies a search. Moving to a
higher level of suspicion, such as Asubstantial certainty,@ does
not somehow make the Amendment inapplicable. The opposing
position would hold that, the more certain the police are, the
less applicable the Amendment becomes. That position confuses
Fourth Amendment applicability with Fourth Amendment sat-
isfaction.180 Underlying the private search doctrine is the view
that the private party has already discovered what is in the
container; in the Court's words, the private party has
eliminated the owner's reasonable expectation of privacy in the
contents of the container. Yet, when the governmental agent
opens an opaque container that a private party has not opened,
the agent does learn something that the private party did not
learn. That is, the container does in fact hold a gun, drugs, or
child pornography, or that the container in fact holds something
else B despite all indications of what it held prior to its opening.
Finally, there remains the oft-stated gun case hypothetical.
This is much different than the situation in Jacobsen, where
the contents of the transparent package could be viewed with-
out opening the container. The gun case hypothetical envisions
a container that is specifically designed to hold a gun and
1 8 0
C f . S o ld a l v C o o k C o u n ty, 5 0 6 U .S . 5 6 , 6 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( A[ T ] h e r e a s o n
w h y a n o ffic e r m ig h t e n t e r a h o u s e o r e f f e c t u a t e a s e iz u r e is w h o lly ir r e le v a n t t o t h e
t h r e s h o ld q u e s t io n w h e th e r th e A m e n d m e n t a p p lie s . W h a t m a t t e r s is th e in t r u s io n
o n t h e p e o p le 's s e c u r it y f r o m g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r f e r e n c e . @) .
whose exterior shape informs the observer that it is a gun

case.181 However, putting aside transparent gun cases, the
shape of the case does not disclose what is inside; instead, it
informs the observer that it is a case designed to hold guns and
perhapsBor even probablyBthat there is a gun inside. The police
will not know what is inside until they open the case or use
other means, such as an x-ray, to examine its contents. The
dissent in Walter was correct in asserting that the viewing of
the films in that case and the gun case hypothetical presented
identical scenarios. Yet, in both situations, although the police
may have had a high degree of confidence in what they would
find when they opened the container, that confidence should not
eliminate the applicability of the Amendment; instead, that
confidence goes to the reasonableness of the police's actions.182
1 8 1
G u n c a s e s c o m e in m a n y f o r m s : s o m e a r e m e r e r e c t a n g u la r h a r d -
s id e d b o x e s ; o th e r s a r e s o f t -s id e d a n d in th e s h a p e o f a r ifle o r a s h o tg u n .
R e c t a n g u la r b o x e s d is c lo s e n o t h in g o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e b o x . I n s t e a d , t h e g u n c a s e
h y p o t h e t ic a l r e f e r s t o t h o s e c o n t a in e r s t h a t h a v e t h e u n iq u e s h a p e t h a t s a y s t o t h e
v ie w e r t h a t is a c o n t a in e r d e s ig n e d t o h o ld a g u n .
1 8 2
C f . C la n c y , C o n c e p t o f R e a s o n a b le n e s s , s u p r a n o t e 5 7 , a t 1 0 0 0 -0 3
( d is c u s s in g th e C o u r t 's in c o n s is t e n t tre a tm e n t o f c o n t a in e r s a s to a p p lic a t io n o f
w a r r a n t p r e fe r e n c e r u le a n d a r g u in g th a t th e r e s h o u ld b e n o w a r r a n t r e q u ir e m e n t
f o r Ae f f e c t s @) .
IV. SELECTED SATISFACTION ISSUES
A. Probable Cause
The concept of probable causeBa familiar but fluid standard for

a court to apply183Bhas created some unique difficulties in the
computer context.184 This article focuses on two nexus questions
that have troubled the courts confronting them: 1) as to
subscribers of child pornography sites, the amount of infor-
mation needed in order to conclude that there is probable cause
to search the subscriber's computer; and 2) as to distributors or
recipients of child pornography, establishing the location of the
computer used to distribute or receive the materials.185 Both of
these problems illuminate the difficulty of piercing through the
layers of anonymity that the Internet affords.
1 8 3
S e e g e n e r a lly R o n a ld J . B a c ig a l, M a k in g t h e R ig h t G a m b le : T h e O d d s
o n P r o b a b le C a u s e , 7 4 M IS S . L . J . 2 7 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( c o m p r e h e n s iv e ly e x a m in in g th e
c o n c e p t o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e ) . AI n d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b a b l e c a u s e . . . a s t h e v e r y n a m e i m -
p lie s , w e d e a l w it h p r o b a b ilit ie s . T h e s e a r e n o t t e c h n ic a l ; t h e y a r e th e fa c tu a l a n d
p r a c t ic a l c o n s id e r a t io n s o f e v e r y d a y life o n w h ic h r e a s o n a b le a n d p r u d e n t m e n , n o t
le g a l t e c h n ic ia n s , a c t . @ B r in e g a r v . U n it e d S ta te s , 3 3 8 U .S . 1 6 0 , 1 7 5 (1 9 4 9 ). T h e
t o t a lit y o f t h e c ir c u m s t a n c e s is ta k e n in t o a c c o u n t to d e t e r m in e w h e t h e r t h e r e is a
Af a i r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t c o n t r a b a n d o r e v id e n c e o f a c r im e w ill b e fo u n d in a p a r t ic u la r
p la c e . @ Illin o is v . G a t e s , 4 6 2 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 8 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I n r e v ie w in g a w a r r a n t t h a t h a d
b e e n is s u e d b y a m a g is t r a t e , a c o u r t d o e s n o t m a k e a d e n o v o d e t e r m in a t io n o f
p r o b a b le c a u s e ; in s t e a d , t h e p r o p e r q u e s t io n is w h e t h e r a s u b s t a n t ia l b a s is e x it s f o r
t h e m a g is t r a t e 's f i n d in g o f p r o b a b le c a u s e . I d . a t 2 3 6 .
1 8 4
A s w it h o t h e r s it u a t io n s , p r o b a b le c a u s e d e t e r m in a t io n s in t h e c o m -
p u t e r c o n t e x t a r e f a c t -b o u n d . S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . H ill, 3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 1 ,
1 0 8 4 -8 7 ( C . D . C a l. 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g w h e n a lle g a t io n s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y a r e
s u f fic ie n t ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 8 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 7 (D . M a s s . 2 0 0 0 ) (it is
Ar e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t s o m e o n e a l l e g e d l y e n g a g e d i n b a n k f r a u d a n d p r o d u c i n g
f a ls e s e c u r it ie s o n h is c o m p u te r w o u ld h a v e r e c o r d s o f th e b a n k fr a u d a n d f a ls e
s e c u r it ie s o n t h a t c o m p u t e r @) ; B u r n e t t v . S t a t e , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 3 -7 5 ( F la .
There is a split of authority over the strength of the inference

that can be drawn as to whether a person has child por-
nography on his computer based on membership in a child
pornography web site. A few courts have indicated that mere
membership in a child pornography site is sufficient.186 Others
A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o p r o b a b le c a u s e t o s u p p o r t w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h c o m p u t e r f o r e v id e n c e
o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y b a s e d o n in it ia l c o m p la in t t h a t s u s p e c t h a d m a d e le w d v id e o t a p e
o f tw o c h ild r e n ) ; S t a t e v . S t a le y , 5 4 8 S .E .2 d 2 6 , 2 8 -2 9 ( G a . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( a lt h o u g h
p o lic e h a d p r o b a b le c a u s e t o b e lie v e t h a t S t a le y h a d m o le s t e d a s p e c ific c h ild , t h a t h e
h a d w o r k e d a s a c o m p u te r a n a ly s t , t h a t h e h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s ly c o n v ic t e d o f m o -
le s t in g a c h ild a n d t a k in g p ic t u r e s o f t h a t c h ild , a n d th a t th e a ffia n t d e t a ile d th a t
p e d o p h ile s s to r e d in f o r m a t io n r e la t in g to h a v in g s e x w it h c h ild r e n , t h e r e w a s n o
n e x u s b e t w e e n e it h e r t h e c r im e o f m o le s t in g t h a t s p e c ific c h ild o r t h e p r o p e n s it ie s o f
c h ild s e x o ffe n d e r s a n d s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r in S t a le y 's a p a r tm e n t); S ta te v . L u m ,
9 9 8 P .2 d 1 3 7 , 1 3 9 -4 2 ( K a n . C t . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a ffid a v it in s u p p o r t o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t
f o r c o m p u t e r in s u f f ic ie n t b e c a u s e a ffia n t f a ile d t o d e t a il b a s is o f k n o w le d g e ) ; W illifo r d
v. S ta te , 1 2 7 S .W .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 3 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e to s e iz e
c o m p u te r b a s e d o n r e p a ir m a n 's v ie w in g o f t h u m b n a il p ic t u r e o f tw o n a k e d b o y s o n
b e d ); B u r k e v . S ta te , 2 7 S .W .3 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 3 -5 6 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (fa c t -b o u n d
q u e s t io n w h e th e r th e r e w a s p r o b a b le c a u s e to is s u e w a r r a n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y
c a s e ).
A p e r s is t e n t q u e s t io n c o n c e r n s th e c ir c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h ic h file n a m e s
e s t a b lis h p r o b a b le c a u s e t o s e a r c h o r s e iz e a c o m p u t e r ; a f in d in g o f p r o b a b le c a u s e
g e n e r a lly tu r n s o n th e e x p lic it n a tu r e o f th e n a m e s a n d th e s u r r o u n d in g
c ir c u m s t a n c e s . S e e , e . g . , S t a t e v . W ib le , 5 1 P .3 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 3 -3 4 (W a s h . A p p . 2 0 0 2 )
(file n a m e s A8 y e a r o ld R a p e @ a n d A8 y e a r o ld S m ile @ g a v e c o n te x t a n d m e a n in g to
r e p a ir m a n 's t ip t h a t c o m p u t e r c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) .
1 8 5
T h e n u m b e r o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h e r s u t iliz in g th e In t e r n e t is t r u ly
s h o c k in g a n d la w e n fo r c e m e n t e ffo r ts to c a tc h th o s e c r im in a ls c o m p r is e a la r g e
p o r t io n o f t h e p u b lis h e d d e c is io n s d e a lin g w it h c o m p u t e r -r e la t e d s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e s .
S e e , e .g ., A m y E . W e lls , C o m m e n t , C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e : T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t C o l-
lid e s w it h th e P r o b le m o f C h ild P o r n o g r a p h y a n d th e In t e r n e t , 5 3 O K L A . L . R E V . 9 9 ,
1 0 0 -0 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( c a t a lo g u in g r e a s o n s fo r e x p lo s io n o f In t e r n e t c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y).
T h e In t e r n e t h a s in c r e a s in g ly b e c o m e a p r e f e r r e d v e h ic le t o t r a d e a n d d is t r ib u t e c h ild
p o r n o g r a p h y ; w e b s it e s a r e d e s ig n e d fo r th a t p u r p o s e a n d c h a t r o o m s a r e u s e d to
e s t a b lis h c o n t a c t s , f o llo w e d b y t r a n s m is s io n o r t r a d in g o f im a g e s . S e e , e . g . , U n it e d
S ta te s v . H a y, 2 3 1 F .3 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 6 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . B e c a u s e o f a c o m p u t e r 's a b ilit y
to s t o r e im a g e s in d ig it a l fo r m , i t i s a n id e a l r e p o s it o r y f o r c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y . Id . a t
6 3 5 -3 6 .
1 8 6
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . M a r t in , 4 2 6 F .3 d 3 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( f i n d in g
have rejected that view.187 Those latter courts caution:

I f t h e G o v e r n m e n t is c o r r e c t in it s p o s it io n t h a t m e m b e r s h ip
in t h e C a n d y m a n g r o u p [ a n In t e r n e t c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s it e ]
a lo n e w a s s u ffic ie n t t o s u p p o r t a fin d in g o f p r o b a b le c a u s e ,
t h e n p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is t e d t o in t r u d e in t o t h e h o m e s o f
s o m e 3 , 4 0 0 ( o r e v e n 6 , 0 0 0 ) in d iv id u a ls m e r e ly b e c a u s e
t h e ir e -m a il a d d r e s s e s w e r e e n t e r e d in t o t h e C a n d y m a n
w e b s it e . W it h o u t a n y in d ic a t io n t h a t a n y o f t h e s e in d iv id u a ls
d o w n lo a d e d o r u p lo a d e d o r t r a n s m it t e d o r r e c e iv e d a n y
im a g e s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y , w it h o u t a n y e v id e n c e t h a t
t h e s e in d iv id u a ls d id a n y t h in g m o r e t h a n s im p ly s u b s c r ib e ,
t h e G o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s t h a t it h a d t h e r ig h t t o e n t e r t h e ir
p r o b a b le c a u s e b a s e d o n s u b s c r ip t io n to w e b s it e t h a t 's e s s e n t ia l p u r p o s e w a s to
t r a d e c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . W a g e r s , 3 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 3 4 (E .D . K y.
2 0 0 4 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is t e d th a t s u s p e c t 's h o m e c o m p u te r c o n t a in e d c h ild
p o r n o g r a p h y b a s e d o n m e m b e r s h ip in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w e b s it e ) ; U . S . v . B a ile y , 2 7 2
F . S u p p . 2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 4 -2 5 ( D . N e b . 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o ld in g t h a t Ak n o w i n g l y b e c o m in g a
c o m p u t e r s u b s c r ib e r t o a s p e c ia liz e d In t e r n e t s it e t h a t f r e q u e n t ly , o b v io u s ly , u n q u e s -
t io n a b ly a n d s o m e t im e s a u t o m a t ic a lly d is t r ib u t e s e le c t r o n ic im a g e s o f c h ild
p o r n o g r a p h y to o t h e r c o m p u t e r s u b s c r ib e r s a lo n e e s t a b lis h e s p r o b a b le c a u s e f o r a
s e a r c h o f th e t a r g e t s u b s c r ib e r 's c o m p u te r e v e n th o u g h it is c o n c e iv a b le th a t th e
p e r s o n s u b s c r ib in g to th e c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s it e d id s o f o r in n o c e n t p u r p o s e s a n d
e v e n th o u g h t h e r e is n o d ir e c t e v id e n c e t h a t t h e t a r g e t s u b s c r ib e r a c t u a lly r e c e iv e d
c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y o n h i s o r h e r c o m p u t e r @) .
1 8 7
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . G o u r d e , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 1 -1 3 (9 th
C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o ld in g t h a t m e r e ly b e c a u s e s u s p e c t w a s m e m b e r o f In t e r n e t c h ild p o r -
n o g r a p h y s it e fo r a t le a s t t w o m o n th s w a s in s u ffic ie n t t o e s t a b lis h th a t h e h a d
d o w n lo a d e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o n to h is h o m e c o m p u t e r , d e s p it e a d is c u s s io n o f
t r a it s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o lle c t o r s b y a ffia n t t h a t in c lu d e d e x p la n a t io n s th a t th e y
Ar a r e l y if e v e r @ d is p o s e o f p o r n o g r a p h y a n d th a t th e y u s e th e In t e r n e t t o s h a r e
in f o r m a t io n a n d t r a d e c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) , r e h 'g g r a n te d , 4 1 6 F .3 d 9 6 1 (9 th C ir .
2 0 0 5 ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . P e r e z , 2 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 4 5 9 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (S .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 3 )
( s u b s c r ip t io n to k n o w n c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w e b s it e c r e a te d a Ac h a n c e , b u t n o t a f a ir
p r o b a b i l i t y , t h a t c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y w o u l d b e f o u n d @) . B u t s e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o r c a s ,
4 1 9 F .3 d 1 5 1 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a lt h o u g h a ffir m in g d e n ia l o f m o t io n t o s u p p r e s s , t h e
p a n e l d id s o b a s e d o n p r io r p r e c e d e n t f i n d in g p r o b a b le c a u s e s t e m m in g fr o m
m e m b e r s h ip in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w e b s it e , w h ile c r it ic iz in g th a t p r e c e d e n t a s
u n s o u n d ).
h o m e s t o c o n d u c t a s e a r c h a n d s e iz e t h e ir c o m p u t e r s ,
c o m p u te r file s a n d e q u ip m e n t , s c a n n e r s , a n d d ig it a l
c a m e r a s . T h is c a n n o t b e w h a t t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t
c o n t e m p la t e d .
* * * * H e r e , t h e in t r u s io n is p o t e n t ia lly e n o r m o u s :
t h o u s a n d s o f in d iv id u a ls w o u ld b e s u b je c t t o s e a r c h , t h e ir
h o m e s in v a d e d a n d t h e ir p r o p e r t y s e iz e d , in o n e f e ll s w o o p ,
e v e n t h o u g h t h e ir o n ly a c t iv it y c o n s is t e d o f e n t e r in g a n e -m a il
a d d r e s s in t o a w e b s it e f r o m a c o m p u t e r lo c a t e d in t h e
c o n fin e s o f t h e ir o w n h o m e s . I n f a c t , h e r e t h e F B I s e n t o u t
7 0 0 o r m o r e d r a ft s e a r c h w a r r a n ts a c r o s s th e c o u n t r y . . . .
In lig h t o f t h e p o t e n t ia l im p a c t , c a r e m u s t b e t a k e n . 1 8 8
To establish probable cause to search, courts often rely on

additional informationBbeyond membership in a child pornogra-
phy siteBthat substantiates the person's sexual interest in
children or in child pornography.189 That additional information
has included such factors as evidence of actual down-
loading190Bas opposed to mere viewing,191 automatic transmis-
1 8 8
P e r e z , 2 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 8 3 -8 4 .
1 8 9
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . F r o m a n , 3 5 5 F .3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 4 -9 1 (5 th
C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( u p h o l d i n g s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r m e m b e r o f g r o u p w h o s e As i n g u l a r g o a l . . .
w a s to c o lle c t a n d d is t r ib u t e c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y a n d s e x u a lly e x p lic it im a g e s o f c h il-
d r e n ,@ w h e n m e m b e r s c o u ld c h o o s e to a u t o m a t ic a lly r e c e iv e e m a ils w it h a tta c h e d
im a g e s a n d F r o m a n 's in t e r e s t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w a s s h o w n b y h is c h o s e n s c r e e n
n a m e s , AL i t t l e b u t t s u e @ a n d AL i t t l e t i t g i r l y @) ; S t a t e v . S c h a e f e r , 6 6 8 N .W .2 d 7 6 0 , 7 7 0
(W is . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( b e c a u s e c o m p u t e r file s a r e c o m m o n w a y o f s t o r in g p h o t o g r a p h s ,
r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e th a t c o m p u te r c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w h e n s u s p e c t
a c t iv e ly c u lt iv a t e d f r ie n d s h ip o f te e n a g e b o y s b y in v it in g th e m to u s e h is h o m e
c o m p u te r , u s e d h is c o m p u te r to c o m m u n ic a t e w it h o th e r s in t e r e s t e d in s t o r ie s
a b o u t a d u lt s s e x u a lly a s s a u lt in g c h ild r e n , a n d v is it e d In t e r n e t s it e s w h e r e c h ild p o r -
n o g r a p h y w a s a v a ila b le f o r d o w n lo a d in g ) .
1 9 0
G o u r d e , 3 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 2 ( AR e q u i r i n g th e g o v e r n m e n t to
b u t t r e s s it s a ffid a v it w it h p e r s o n a liz e d in f o r m a t io n lin k in g a w e b s it e m e m b e r t o a c t u a l
c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s t r ik e s a r e a s o n a b le b a la n c e b e t w e e n s a f e g u a r d in g t h e im p o r t a n t
F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r in c ip le s e m b o d ie d in th e p r o b a b le c a u s e r e q u ir e m e n t a n d
e n s u r in g t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t c a n e f f e c t iv e ly p r o s e c u t e p o s s e s s o r s a n d d is t r ib u t o r s
o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y . @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . P e r e z , 2 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 4 5 9 , 4 8 3 -8 4
( S . D . N . Y . 2 0 0 3 ) ( r e je c t in g fin d in g o f p r o b a b le c a u s e a n d n o t in g , in t e r a lia , t h a t ,
sions as part of the site's services,192 use of suggestive screen

names,193 expert information on the retention habits of child
pornography collectors194 (which often serves to dispel allega-
u n lik e o t h e r c a s e s w h e r e t h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e o f d o w n lo a d in g , t h e a f f id a v it c o n t a in e d
An o t h i n g c o n c r e t e t o s u g g e s t t h a t P e r e z h a d t r a n s m i t t e d o r r e c e i v e d i m a g e s o f c h i l d
p o r n o g r a p h y @) .
1 9 1
S e e P e r e z , 2 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 8 3 -8 4 n .1 2 ( AT h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t
c r im in a liz e ` v ie w in g ' t h e im a g e s , a n d th e r e r e m a in s th e is s u e o f w h e th e r im a g e s
v ie w e d o n th e in t e r n e t a n d a u t o m a t ic a lly s t o r e d in a b r o w s e r 's t e m p o r a r y f i l e c a c h e
a r e k n o w in g ly ` p o s s e s s e d ' o r ` r e c e i v e d . ' @) ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S ta te s v . Z im m e r m a n ,
2 7 7 F .3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( w it h o u t e v id e n c e th a t p o r n o g r a p h y w a s s p e -
c ific a lly d o w n lo a d e d a n d s a v e d t o d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r , o f f e n d in g i m a g e s Am a y w e l l
h a v e b e e n lo c a t e d in c y b e r s p a c e , n o t in [th e d e f e n d a n t ' s ] h o m e @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v .
T u c k e r , 3 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( u p h o ld in g c o n v ic t io n fo r
p o s s e s s io n o f f i l e s a u t o m a t ic a lly s t o r e d in b r o w s e r c a c h e b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t 's h a b it
o f m a n u a lly d e le t in g im a g e s f r o m c a c h e file s e s t a b lis h e d h is c o n t r o l o v e r t h e m ) .
1 9 2
S e e P e r e z , 2 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 8 5 ( a s s e r t in g t h a t At h e a g e n t s e i-
t h e r h a d o r c o u ld h a v e h a d , b e f o r e t h e y r e q u e s t e d th e w a r r a n t , a ll t h e Y a h o o lo g s ,
w h ic h p r o v id e d e x t e n s iv e i n f o r m a t i o n Cw h e t h e r a s u b s c r ib e r w a s o ffe r e d e -m a il
d e liv e r y o p t io n s ; w h e t h e r h e e le c t e d a d e liv e r y o p t io n ; w h e t h e r h e u p lo a d e d o r p o s t e d
a n y im a g e s ; w h e n h e s u b s c r ib e d ; a n d w h e t h e r h e u n s u b s c r i b e d @) . C f . U n i t e d S t a t e s
v. F r o m a n , 3 5 5 F .3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 4 -9 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( u p h o ld in g s e a r c h w a r r a n t fo r
m e m b e r o f g r o u p w h o s e As i n g u l a r g o a l . . . w a s t o c o l l e c t a n d d i s t r i b u t e c h i l d p o r n o g -
r a p h y a n d s e x u a lly e x p lic it im a g e s o f c h ild r e n , @ w h e n m e m b e r s c o u ld c h o o s e to
a u t o m a t ic a lly r e c e iv e e m a ils w it h a tta c h e d im a g e s a n d F r o m a n 's in t e r e s t in c h ild
p o r n o g r a p h y w a s s h o w n b y h is c h o s e n s c r e e n n a m e s , AL i t t l e b u t t s u e @ a n d
AL i t t l e t i t g i r l y @) .
1 9 3
G o u r d e , 3 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 1 -1 3 ( s t a t in g th a t s c r e e n n a m e
in d ic a t in g s e x u a l in t e r e s t in c h ild r e n w o u ld a d d t o p r o b a b le c a u s e d e t e r m in a t io n ) .
1 9 4
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . L a c y, 1 1 9 F .3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 5 (9 th C ir .
1 9 9 7 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e fo u n d in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e w h e n a ffia n t, b a s e d o n h e r
t r a in in g a n d e x p e r ie n c e , e x p la in e d th a t c o lle c t o r s a n d d is t r ib u t o r s o f c h ild
p o r n o g r a p h y t y p ic a lly s t o r e it in t h e ir h o m e s ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . W a g e r s , 3 3 9 F . S u p p .
2 d 9 3 4 , 9 4 1 ( E . D . K y . 2 0 0 4 ) ( AI n c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e s , c o u r t s h a v e r e p e a t e d l y
r e c o g n iz e d th a t c o lle c t o r s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y te n d to r e t a in t h e ir m a t e r i a l s . @) ;
U n it e d S ta te s v . C o x, 1 9 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 (N .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 2 ) (s a m e ); S ta te v .
E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d 4 3 2 , 4 4 6 , 4 4 8 ( N . J . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t
p o r n o g r a p h ic im a g e s o f c h ild r e n w o u ld b e r e t a in e d o n c o m p u te r d u e to r e t e n t io n
h a b it s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h e r s ); S ta te v . L in d g r e n , 6 8 7 N .W .2 d 6 0 , 6 4 -6 5 (W is .
tions of staleness195 and identifies the house as the place where
A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (w h e n d e fe n d a n t to o k n u d e p h o to g r a p h s o f a 1 4 y e a r o ld f e m a le
e m p lo y e e a t w o r k , to u c h e d h e r v a g in a l a r e a , a n d h a d a lle g e d ly t a k e n p ic t u r e s o f
o th e r f e m a le e m p lo y e e s , a n d a ffia n t d e t a ile d h a b it s a n d c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f c h ild
m o le s t e r s , in c lu d in g , in t e r a lia , t h a t t h e y c o lle c t s e x u a lly e x p lic it m a t e r ia ls , r a r e ly
d is p o s e o f th e m , a n d r e c o r d d ia r ie s o f t h e ir e n c o u n te r s o n , in t e r a lia , t h e ir
c o m p u te r s , p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is t e d to s e a r c h h o m e c o m p u te r fo r p h o t o g r a p h ic
e v id e n c e o f u n d e r a g e c h ild r e n o f s e x u a lly e x p lic it n a t u r e ) . C f . U n it e d S t a t e s v . G o u r d e ,
3 8 2 F .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 1 -1 3 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( m e r e ly b e c a u s e s u s p e c t w a s
m e m b e r o f In t e r n e t c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s it e fo r a t le a s t t w o m o n th s in s u f f ic ie n t t o
e s t a b lis h h e h a d d o w n lo a d e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o n to h o m e c o m p u te r , d e s p it e
d is c u s s io n o f t r a it s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o lle c t o r s b y a ffia n t th a t in c lu d e d
e x p la n a t io n s t h a t t h e y Ar a r e l y i f e v e r @ d i s p o s e o f p o r n o g r a p h y a n d th a t th e y u s e th e
I n t e r n e t t o s h a r e in f o r m a t io n a n d t r a d e c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) , r e h 'g g r a n t e d , 4 1 6 F .3 d
9 6 1 ( 9 t h C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .
T h e r e a s o n w h y c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o lle c t o r s r e t a in t h e ir c o lle c t io n s fo r lo n g
p e r io d s o f tim e w a s e x p la in e d b y th e c o u r t in U n it e d S ta te s v . L a m b , 9 4 5 F . S u p p .
4 4 1 , 4 6 0 (N .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 6 ):
S in c e th e [ c h ild p o r n o g r a p h ic ] m a t e r ia ls a r e ille g a l to d is t r ib u t e a n d
p o s s e s s , in it ia l c o lle c t io n is d iffic u lt . H a v in g s u c c e e d e d in o b t a in in g im a g e s ,
c o lle c t o r s a r e u n lik e ly t o q u ic k ly d e s t r o y t h e m . B e c a u s e o f t h e ir ille g a lit y a n d
th e im p r im a t u r o f s e v e r e s o c ia l s t ig m a s u c h im a g e s c a r r y , c o lle c t o r s w ill
w a n t to s e c r e t th e m in s e c u r e p la c e s , lik e a p r iv a t e r e s id e n c e . T h is
p r o p o s it io n is n o t n o v e l in e it h e r s ta te o r fe d e r a l c o u r t: p e d o p h ile s ,
p r e f e r e n t ia l c h ild m o le s t e r s , a n d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o lle c t o r s m a in t a in t h e ir
m a t e r ia ls f o r s ig n ific a n t p e r io d s o f t i m e .
B u t s e e U n it e d S ta te s v . G r e a th o u s e , 2 9 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 2 (D . O r . 2 0 0 3 )
(e v e n th o u g h a g e n t in d ic a t e d in a ffid a v it t h a t c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o lle c t o r s r o u t in e ly
m a in t a in t h e ir m a t e r ia ls f o r lo n g p e r io d s o f t i m e , r e je c t in g t h a t a s s e r t io n a s s u f f ic ie n t
b e c a u s e it a p p e a r e d At o b e b a s e d u p o n a g e n e r a liz e d s e n s e d e v e lo p e d th r o u g h
i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r a g e n t s @) .
1 9 5
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . H a y , 2 3 1 F .3 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 6 ( 9 t h C ir . 2 0 0 0 )
( p r o b a b le c a u s e t h a t c o m p u t e r in s u s p e c t 's h o m e c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w a s
n o t s t a le , e v e n th o u g h in f o r m a t io n w a s s ix m o n t h s o ld , d u e to a f f i a n t 's e x p la n a t io n
t h a t c o lle c t o r s a n d d is t r ib u t o r s r a r e ly if e v e r d is p o s e o f it a n d s to r e it in s e c u r e
p la c e ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . L a c y, 1 1 9 F .3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 5 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e
n o t s t a le in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e w h e n b a s e d o n in f o r m a t io n 1 0 m o n th s o ld
b e c a u s e a ffia n t , b a s e d o n h e r t r a in in g a n d e x p e r ie n c e , e x p la in e d t h a t c o lle c t o r s a n d
d is t r ib u t o r s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y Ar a r e l y i f e v e r @ d i s p o s e o f s u c h m a t e r ia l ) ; U n it e d
S ta te s v . W a g e r s , 3 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 3 4 , 9 4 1 ( E . D . K y . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c o lle c t in g c a s e s );
the materials were viewed), and prior convictions involving sex

offenses involving children or child pornography.196
Another significant question is ascertaining the location of the
computer that has distributed or received the child pornogra-
phy. This difficulty arises because many individuals use
computers in a variety of locations, including in an office and at
home.197 Persons accessing the Internet are assigned an
H a u s e v . C o m m o n w e a lt h , 8 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 3 -1 4 (K y. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (b a s e d o n
Ah o a r d i n g @ c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y c o l l e c t o r s , i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w a s 1 7 8
d a y s o ld n o t s t a le ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . L a m b , 9 4 5 F . S u p p . 4 4 1 , 4 6 0 -6 1 (N .D .N .Y .
1 9 9 6 ) ( b a s e d , in t e r a lia , o n p r o p o s it io n t h a t p e d o p h ile s , p r e f e r e n t ia l c h ild m o le s t e r s ,
a n d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c o lle c t o r s m a in t a in t h e ir m a t e r ia ls fo r s ig n ific a n t p e r io d o f
t im e , f i v e m o n th d e la y f r o m la s t t r a n s m is s io n o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y to is s u a n c e o f
w a r r a n t d id n o t r e n d e r p r o b a b le c a u s e s t a le ) ; S t a t e v . S c h a e f e r , 6 6 8 N .W .2 d 7 6 0 ,
7 6 7 (W is . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (in f o r m a t io n th a t s u s p e c t p o s s e s s e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y in
1 9 9 8 , s o m e o f w h ic h w e n t b a c k to 1 9 9 0 , n o t s t a le b a s e d o n p r o t r a c t e d a n d c o n -
t in u o u s n a t u r e o f h a b it s o f p r e f e r e n t ia l c h ild o f f e n d e r s , w h o r a r e ly d is p o s e o f s e x u a lly
e x p lic it m a t e r ia ls ) . B u t c f . U n it e d S t a t e s v . Z im m e r m a n , 2 7 7 F .3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 3 -3 4 (3 d
C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e b a s e d o n v ie w in g o f p o r n o g r a p h ic v id e o file o n
d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r s ix m o n t h s p r io r t o e x e c u t io n o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t w a s s t a le , a b -
s e n t e v id e n c e th a t d e fe n d a n t h a d d o w n lo a d e d t h e v id e o c lip a n d a b s e n t e v id e n c e o f
c o n t in u o u s c r im in a l a c t iv it y ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . G r e a th o u s e , 2 9 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 6 4 ,
1 2 7 2 -7 3 ( D . O r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( AC a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f t h e f a c t o r s p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e ,
in c lu d in g th e lim it e d in c r im in a t in g e v id e n c e , th e a b s e n c e o f a n y e v id e n c e o f
in t e r v e n in g c r im in a l a c t iv it y , t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y e v id e n c e th a t [th e s u s p e c t] w a s a
p e d o p h ile , a n d th e fa c t th a t c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t b e c o m e s o b s o le t e v e r y q u ic k ly , I
fin d th a t th e t h ir t e e n m o n th d e la y in t h is c a s e is s im p ly t o o lo n g . I f a lin e m u s t b e
d r a w n in in t e r n e t c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e s , I fin d th a t th e lin e is o n e y e a r a b s e n t
e v i d e n c e o f o n g o i n g o r c o n t i n u o u s c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . @) .
1 9 6
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . W a g e r s , 3 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 3 4 , 9 4 1
( E . D . K y . 2 0 0 4 ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . F is k , 2 5 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 9 4 , 7 0 6 ( E . D . M ic h . 2 0 0 3 )
(w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t h a d p r io r c o n v ic t io n fo r u n la w f u l s e x u a l in v o lv e m e n t w it h a
m in o r , h a d w ir e d m o n e y to p u r v e y o r o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y, a n d w h e n th e p u r v e y o r
s o ld th a t p o r n o g r a p h y o v e r th e In t e r n e t , t h e r e w a s p r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t
c o m p u t e r c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) .
1 9 7
S e e , e .g ., S ta te v . E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d 4 3 2 , 4 4 8 (N .J . 2 0 0 3 )
( AC o m p u t e r s a r e i n u s e in b o th h o m e s a n d b u s in e s s e s , a n d , w it h th e a d v e n t o f th e
la p t o p , in a lm o s t e v e r y o t h e r c o n c e iv a b le p la c e . B u s in e s s p e o p le a n d s t u d e n t s le a v e
Internet Protocol number, which does Anot directly reflect the

geographic street address of the office, residence, or building
from which an individual accesses his email and/or the
internet.@198 As a result, Alaw enforcement officials must conduct
research and rely upon the addresses and data provided by
internet providers, . . . as well as billing addresses for those
service providers and/or credit card companies.@199
Some courts will infer that the computer is located in the home
from the Internet Protocol address assigned to the user's
account. For example, in United States v. Wagers,200 the court
reasoned that, while the account holder
h a d a c c e s s t o t h e in t e r n e t f r o m m a n y lo c a t io n s . . . h is r e s i-
d e n c e a n d b u s in e s s lo c a t io n s a r e c e r t a in ly t h e m o s t lik e ly
a n d s u s p e c t lo c a t io n s th r o u g h w h ic h h e w o u ld h a v e
a c c e s s e d t h e in t e r n e t . T h e q u e s t io n , t h e n , is n o t w h e th e r h e
d id o r d id n o t a c c e s s c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y t h r o u g h t h e s u s p e c t
s it e s f r o m t h o s e p h y s ic a l a d d r e s s e s , b u t , r a t h e r , g iv in g th e
M a g is t r a t e J u d g e 's d e c is io n g r e a t d e f e r e n c e , w h e t h e r t h e r e
i s a Af a i r p r o b a b i l i t y @ t h a t e v i d e n c e o r f r u i t s o f c r im in a l
w r o n g d o in g w o u ld b e f o u n d . 2 0 1
As another example, in State v. Brennan,202 although the sus-

pect admittedly used his work laptop to view and store child
t h e ir h o m e s w it h la p t o p s , u s e t h e m a t o t h e r l o c a t i o n s , a n d r e t u r n h o m e w i t h t h e m . @) .
1 9 8
U n it e d S ta te s v . W a g e r s , 3 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 3 4 , 9 4 0 (E .D . K y.
2 0 0 4 ) . I n t e r n e t p r o t o c o l (IP ) n u m b e r s a r e o w n e d b y In t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r s ; e a c h
n u m b e r is u n iq u e t o e a c h c o m p u t e r w h ile it is o n lin e . T e r r e n c e B e r g , P r a c t ic a l Is s u e s
in S e a r c h in g a n d S e iz in g C o m p u te r s , 7 T .M . C O O L E Y J . P R A C . & C L IN IC A L L . 2 7 , 3 7
n .2 2 (2 0 0 4 ). H o w e v e r , IP n u m b e r s c a n b e e i t h e r Ad y n a m i c @ o r As t a t i c . @ A d y n a m ic
n u m b e r , t y p ic a lly u s e d b y p e r s o n s w h o h a v e d ia l-u p In t e r n e t s e r v ic e , c h a n g e s e a c h
t im e th e u s e r g o e s o n l i n e : Ai t i s o n l y g o o d f o r t h a t t r a n s a c t io n , a n d th e n r e tu r n s to
t h e p o o l o f n u m b e r s a f t e r t h e t r a n s a c t io n is o v e r . @ Id . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a s t a t ic IP
n u m b e r , w h ic h is m o r e c o m m o n ly u s e d w it h c a b le a n d D S L c o n n e c t io n s , is
p e r m a n e n t ly a s s ig n e d t o a c u s t o m e r . Id .
1 9 9
W a g e r s , 3 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 9 4 0 .
2 0 0
Id .
2 0 1
Id .
2 0 2
6 7 4 N .W .2 d 2 0 0 ( M in n . C t . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) .
pornography, the court found that there was a substantial basis

for the magistrate's determination that probable cause existed
to search the suspect's home computer based on the training
and expertise of the affiant, who asserted that persons with an
interest in child pornography tend to view it in their home. The
court reasoned, in part, that Aviewing and possessing child
pornography is, by its nature, a solitary and secretive crime.@203
It accordingly believed that a Acourt could reasonably draw an
inference that the suspect would keep the illicit images in a
place considered safe and secret, like the home.@204 The court
also relied on the transportable nature of laptops and stated
that it was reasonable to infer Athat the illicit images found on
the laptop would also be found on [the suspect's] home comput-
er.@205
Screen names also help to identify who the person is. A Ascreen
name@ is an identity created by a user and may or may not
have any correlation with the user's real name; an individual
typically gains access to a screen name by supplying a
password that is associated with that screen name.206 Some
courts will find probable cause to search the billing address
associated with the screen name.207 As one court has reasoned:
T h e b illin g a d d r e s s o f a n a c c o u n t t ie d t o a c o m p u te r s c r e e n
n a m e m a y n o t b e a n a b s o lu t e g u a r a n t e e t h a t t h e h o ld e r o f
th e c o m p u te r s c r e e n n a m e u s e d th e c o m p u te r a t t h e b illin g
a d d r e s s to c o m m it c r im in a l a c t iv it y , b u t t h e r e is a f a ir a n d
lo g ic a l in f e r e n c e t h a t t h e c o m p u t e r w ill p r o b a b ly b e f o u n d a t
th a t a d d r e s s a n d , if n o t , a t le a s t e v id e n c e o f t h e id e n t it y o f
t h e h o ld e r o f t h e s c r e e n n a m e w ill b e f o u n d t h e r e .2 0 8
2 0 3
Id . a t 2 0 6 .
2 0 4
Id .
2 0 5
Id .
2 0 6
U n it e d S t a t e s v . G r a n t , 2 1 8 F .3 d 7 2 , 7 3 n .1 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .
2 0 7
S e e , e .g ., E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d a t 4 4 6 ( A[ T ] h e b illin g a d d r e s s o f th e
In t e r n e t s c r e e n n a m e Ba s c r e e n n a m e th a t h a d e -m a ile d p h o to g r a p h s o f c h ild p o r -
n o g r a p h y Bw a s t h e l o g i c a l p l a c e t o s e a r c h f o r e v i d e n c e o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e h o l d e r o f
t h e s c r e e n n a m e a n d e v i d e n c e o f t h e c r i m e . @) .
2 0 8
E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d a t 4 4 6 ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S ta te s v . C a m p o s , 2 2 1
Nonetheless, the court cautioned that it would prefer that law

enforcement officials take additional steps to verify that the
computer from which offending images were sent is located in
the defendant's residence.209
Other courts have rejected the view that a registered screen
name is sufficient to establish probable cause to search the
subscriber's computer.210 Instead, it has been suggested that
additional information is needed, such as the fact that the
suspect maintained a computer or computer-related equipment
at the place to be searched that was capable of transmitting
child pornography, the screen name required a particular pass-
word, the transmission of child pornography was to a unique
Internet or ethernet address assigned to a particular computer
at the location to be searched, or the person occupying the place
to be searched had an Aextreme@ interest in young children or
had access to Internet sites operated by entities that required
those having access to maintain Internet-accessible child
pornography.211 Also relevant to the probable cause determi-
F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( u p h o ld in g v a lid it y o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t fo r
d e f e n d a n t 's r e s id e n c e a fte r A[ l ] a w e n fo r c e m e n t a g e n ts d e t e r m in e d th a t A O L s u b -
s c r ib e r w h o u s e d t h e n a m e ` I A M Z E U S ' w a s [ d e f e n d a n t ] @) ; H a u s e v . C o m m o n w e a l t h ,
8 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 4 -5 , 1 1 -1 2 ( K y . C t . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( u p h o ld in g v a lid it y o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t
fo r r e s id e n c e th a t w a s s u p p o r te d b y s u b s c r ib e r in f o r m a t io n o b t a in e d fr o m In t e r n e t
s e r v ic e p r o v id e r th r o u g h C a lifo r n ia s e a r c h w a r r a n t a n d v e r ific a t io n o f a d d r e s s b y
K e n t u c k y la w e n f o r c e m e n t o ffic ia ls ) .
2 0 9
E v e r s , 8 1 5 A .2 d a t 4 4 6 .
2 1 0
S e e , e . g . , T a y lo r v . S ta te , 5 4 S .W .3 d 2 1 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (n o
p r o b a b le c a u s e t o s e a r c h c o m p u t e r f o r c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y in T a y lo r 's h o m e w h e n a f f i-
d a v it m e r e ly a lle g e d th a t o n e im a g e o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s e n t o v e r t h e In t e r n e t h a d
b e e n t r a c e d t o s c r e e n n a m e r e g is t e r e d t o T a y lo r ) .
2 1 1
S e e , e . g . , T a y lo r v . S t a t e , 5 4 S .W .3 d 2 1 , 2 5 -2 6 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 1 )
( c o lle c t in g c a s e s ) ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S t a t e s v . B a c h , 4 0 0 F .3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 7 -2 8 (8 th C ir .
2 0 0 5 ) ( p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is t e d to s e a r c h d e f e n d a n t 's h o m e c o m p u te r , e v e n in a b -
s e n c e o f c r o s s r e fe r e n c e s o f IP a d d r e s s e s p r o v id e d b y th e IS P a n d h is t e le p h o n e
r e c o r d s b a s e d , in t e r a lia , o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e u s e r n a m e e m p lo y e d t o c o r r e s p o n d t o
th e m in o r w a s r e g is t e r e d to d e f e n d a n t a t h is a d d r e s s ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 2 0 0 5 U .S .
L E X IS 6 5 8 5 ( U . S . , O c t . 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . G r a n t , 2 1 8 F .3 d 7 2 , 7 5 ( 1 s t C ir .
nation would be the habits of child pornography collectors, their

propensity to collect child pornography and maintain the
collection at home, and whether the suspect was a pedophile.212
B. Consent
1. In General
Consent to search is a question of fact and is determined based

on the totality of the circumstances.213 The ultimate question
turns on the voluntary nature of the conse214 The principles
regulating the permissibility of a search or seizure based on a
claim of consent do not change in the context of computer
searches.215 However, computers present several challenges to
the application of those principles.
2 0 0 0 ) (b e c a u s e u s e o f p a s s w o r d -p r o te c t e d a c c o u n t r e q u ir e s th a t u s e r k n o w
p a s s w o r d a s s o c ia t e d w it h a c c o u n t , f a ir p r o b a b ilit y t h a t p e r s o n u s in g a c c o u n t is r e g is -
t r a n t).
2 1 2
S e e , e . g . , T a y lo r v . S t a t e , 5 4 S .W .3 d 2 1 , 2 5 -2 6 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 1 );
s e e a ls o B e r g , s u p r a n o te 1 9 8 , a t 4 2 -4 5 ( a r g u i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e Ag o o d r e a s o n s @ t o
f o llo w th e T a y lo r c o u r t 's a p p r o a c h , in c lu d in g th e f a c t t h a t e m a il h e a d e r s c a n b e
f o r g e d , t h a t t h e in f o r m a t io n g iv e n t o a n IS P r e g a r d in g t h e u s e r 's b illin g a d d r e s s d o e s
n o t m e a n th a t a c o m p u te r is p r e s e n t a t th a t a d d r e s s , a n d t h a t , w it h c u r r e n t
t e c h n o lo g y , IS P s c a n d e t e r m in e t h e p h o n e n u m b e r s a n d t im e s w h e n t h e a c c o u n t w a s
a c c e s s e d ).
2 1 3
O h io v . R o b in e t t e , 5 1 9 U .S . 3 3 , 4 0 (1 9 9 6 ).
2 1 4
S e e , e . g . , S c h n e c k lo t h v . B u s t a m o n t e , 4 1 2 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 (1 9 7 3 )
( v ie w in g c o n s e n t a s a n e x c e p t io n to w a r r a n t a n d p r o b a b le c a u s e r e q u ir e m e n t s ) ;
U n it e d S ta te s v . W h it e , 4 0 1 U .S . 7 4 5 , 7 5 2 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; A ld e r m a n v . U n it e d S ta te s ,
3 9 4 U .S . 1 6 5 , 1 7 9 n .1 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; H o f f a v . U n it e d S ta te s , 3 8 5 U .S . 2 9 3 , 3 0 2 -0 3
( 1 9 6 6 ) . U n d e r ly in g c o n s e n t p r in c ip le s is t h e C o u r t 's a s s u m p t io n o f r is k a n a ly s is . S e e ,
e .g ., U n it e d S ta te s v . K a tz, 3 8 9 U .S . 3 5 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ( AW h a t a p e r s o n k n o w in g ly
e x p o s e s to th e p u b lic , e v e n in h is o w n h o m e o r o ffic e , is n o t a s u b je c t o f F o u r t h
A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t i o n . @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . J a c o b s e n , 4 6 6 U .S . 1 0 9 , 1 1 8 (1 9 8 4 )
(w h e n in d iv id u a l r e v e a ls in f o r m a t io n to a n o th e r , h e a s s u m e s th e r is k t h a t h is c o n -
2. Scope of Consent
f i d a n t w i l l r e v e a l t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n ) . V o l u n t a r i n e s s Bm e a n i n g t h e l a c k o f c o e r c i o n b y t h e
g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t s Cm u s t b e e s t a b lis h e d . H o w e v e r , t h e c o n s e n t n e e d n o t b e a n in -
f o r m e d o n e , w h ic h is t o s a y t h a t t h e p e r s o n g iv in g t h e c o n s e n t n e e d n o t k n o w th a t h e
o r s h e h a s th e r ig h t t o r e f u s e , w h ic h is th e e s s e n t ia l h o ld in g o f S c h n e c k lo t h . T h e
A m e n d m e n t r e g u la t e s th e r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f g o v e r n m e n ta l a c to r s , n o t th e
k n o w le d g e o f p r iv a t e in d iv id u a ls . H e n c e , it is r e a s o n a b le f o r a la w e n fo r c e m e n t o ffic e r
t o r e ly o n t h e a p p a r e n t c o n s e n t o f a p e r s o n w h o s e e m s a u t h o r iz e d a n d c o m p e t e n t t o
c o n s e n t , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e r o r n o t th e p e r s o n is in f a c t a u t h o r iz e d , c o m p e t e n t ,
o r o t h e r w is e m a k in g a n in f o r m e d c h o ic e . S e e Illin o is v . R o d r ig u e z , 4 9 7 U .S . 1 7 7 ,
1 8 3 -8 9 (1 9 9 0 ) (c o n s e n t b y p e r s o n w h o m p o lic e r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e t o h a v e c o m m o n
a u t h o r it y o v e r p r e m is e s v a lid a t e d s e a r c h ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . M a t lo c k , 4 1 5 U .S . 1 6 4 ,
1 7 1 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ( t h ir d p a r t y m a y c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h if p a r t y h a s c o m m o n a u t h o r it y o r o t h -
e r s u ffic ie n t r e la t io n s h ip t o p r e m is e s o r e f f e c t s ) .
2 1 5
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . M a b e , 3 3 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 0 (D .
U ta h 2 0 0 4 ) ( r e je c t in g a s s e r t io n th a t d e fe n d a n t c o n s e n te d to s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r
a fte r p o lic e f a ls e ly s t a t e d t h a t t h e y h a d s e a r c h w a r r a n t ) ; P e o p le v . Y u r u c k s o , 7 4 6
N .Y .S .2 d 3 3 , 3 4 -3 5 ( N . Y . A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h o m e c o m p u t e r v a lid ,
b a s e d o n d e f e n d a n t 's m a t u r it y , e d u c a t io n , a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s , e v e n t h o u g h p o lic e s t a t -
e d t h a t , if h e d id n o t c o n s e n t , t h e y w o u ld o b t a in a s e a r c h w a r r a n t a n d s e iz e h is w o r k
c o m p u te r ).
A person may Adelimit as he chooses the scope of the search to

which he consents.@216 The government, in performing a search,
cannot exceed the scope of the consent given. This is an
objective inquiry: Awhat would the typical reasonable person
have understood by the exchange between the officer and the
suspect?@217 Moreover, the scope of a consensual search is
generally defined by its expressed object.218 This is to say that
consent Aextends to the entire area in which the object of the
search may be found and is not limited by the possibility that
separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete
the search.@219 Thus, for example, troopers exceeded the scope of
2 1 6
F lo r id a v . J im e n o , 5 0 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . C f . U n it e d S t a t e s v .
L e m m o n s , 2 8 2 F .3 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 4 -2 5 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( a lt h o u g h s u s p e c t g a v e lim it e d
c o n s e n t in it ia lly , h is la t e r c o n s e n t to s e a r c h c o m p u te r m a d e s e a r c h v a lid ) ; U n it e d
S ta te s v . G r e e n e , 5 6 M .J . 8 1 7 , 8 2 2 -2 3 ( N -M . C t . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( w h e n s u s p e c t
s ig n e d fo r m a g r e e in g th a t a g e n ts c o u ld r e m o v e a n d r e t a in h is p r o p e r ty o r p a p e r s
Aw h i c h a r e d e s ir e d fo r in v e s t ig a t iv e p u r p o s e s ,@ a g e n ts d id n o t e x c e e d s c o p e o f
c o n s e n t w h e n t h e y s e iz e d h is c o m p u t e r a n d d is c s a n d h e ld t h e m fo r th r e e m o n th s ).
2 1 7
J im e n o , 5 0 0 U .S . a t 2 5 1 .
2 1 8
Id ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S ta te s v . R a n e y, 3 4 2 F .3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 8 (7 th C ir .
2 0 0 3 ) ( s e i z u r e o f Ah o m e m a d e @ a d u l t p o r n o g r a p h y w i t h i n s c o p e o f c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h
f o r A` m a t e r i a l s [ t h a t ] a r e e v i d e n c e i n t h e n a t u r e o f ' c h i l d a b u s e , c h i l d e r o t i c a , o r c h i l d
e x p lo it a t io n @ a s it s h o w e d a b ilit y a n d in t e n t t o m a n u fa c tu r e p o r n o g r a p h y d e p ic t in g
h im s e lf in s e x u a l a c t s ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . T u r n e r , 1 6 9 F .3 d 8 4 , 8 8 -8 9 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 )
(s c o p e o f d e f e n d a n t 's p e r m is s io n to s e a r c h a p a r t m e n t in c o n n e c t io n w it h in t r u d e r 's
a s s a u lt o n n e ig h b o r e x c e e d e d w h e n p o lic e a c c e s s e d file s o n h is c o m p u t e r b e c a u s e
th e p o lic e r e q u e s t w o u ld h a v e b e e n r e a s o n a b ly u n d e r s t o o d to b e t h a t t h e y in t e n d e d
to s e a r c h f o r p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e o f th e a s s a u lt ) ; S t a t e v . B r o w n , 8 1 3 N .E .2 d 9 5 6 ,
9 6 0 ( O h io C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (s c o p e o f d e f e n d a n t 's c o n s e n t e x c e e d e d w h e n p o lic e
s e iz e d t w o c o m p u te r s fr o m h is h o m e w h e n h e h a d m e r e ly g iv e n c o n s e n t t o lo o k a t
c o m p u t e r s ) ; P e o p le v . O 'B r ie n , 7 6 9 N .Y .S .2 d 6 5 4 , 6 5 6 ( N . Y . A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 3 )
( A[ T ] h e fa c t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t 's w r it t e n c o n s e n t w a s e x p r e s s ly lim it e d to o n ly t h e
C o m p U S A c o m p u t e r a n d m o n it o r lo c a t e d in h is b e d r o o m r e v e a ls d e f e n d a n t 's in t e n t
to m a in t a in h is p r iv a c y in a ll o t h e r c o n te n ts o f h is b e d r o o m , @ in c lu d in g a n o th e r
c o m p u te r ).
2 1 9
U n it e d S ta te s v . R o s s , 4 5 6 U .S . 7 9 8 , 8 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 8 2 ); s e e a ls o
J im e n o , 5 0 0 U .S . a t 2 5 1 ( c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h c a r in c lu d e d c lo s e d p a p e r b a g o n flo o r
o f c a r ) ; C o m m o n w e a lt h v . H in d s , 7 6 8 N .E .2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 1 (M a s s . 2 0 0 2 ) (w h e n
the driver's consent to search his vehicle for guns, drugs,

money, or illegal contraband when they accessed the computer
memory of a cellular phone to retrieve its electronic contents.220
This is because a reasonable person would have understood the
driver's consent to be limited to Asearch any containers inside
the vehicle which might reasonably contain those specific
items@ and none of the objects sought would be found by
accessing the phone's electronic contents.221
On the other hand, when a graduate student in computer
science agreed to allow agents to search his entire home and to
take his computer back to the FBI office for further examina-
tion, it was held that the student Awould have realized that the
examination of his computer would be more than superficial
when the agents explained that they did not have the skills nor
the time to perform the examination at his home.@222 Moreover,
according to the court, Aa graduate student in computer science
would clearly understand the technological resources of the FBI
and its ability to thoroughly examine his computer.@223 Given
the lack of limitations put on the search by the student, his
cooperation, and his expertise, the court believed it was
reasonable for the agents to conclude that they had unlimited
access to the computer.224
d e fe n d a n t c o n s e n te d t o s e a r c h o f h is c o m p u t e r f o r e le c t r o n ic m a il, v a lid s e a r c h n o t
lim it e d t o s p e c ific d ir e c t o r ie s o r lo c a t io n s o n c o m p u t e r ) .
2 2 0
S m it h v . S t a t e , 7 1 3 N .E .2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (In d . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).
2 2 1
Id .
2 2 2
U n it e d S t a t e s v . A l-M a r r i, 2 3 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 9 -4 0 (S .D .N .Y .
2 0 0 2 ).
2 2 3
Id . a t 5 4 0 .
2 2 4
Id .
3. Third Party Consent
The validity of third party consent depends on whether the

person giving consent has either actual authority or apparent
authority to consent.225 In general, a third party may consent to
a warrantless search when that party possesses Acommon au-
thority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or
effects sought to be inspected.@226
C o m m o n a u t h o r it y is . . . n o t t o b e im p lie d f r o m t h e m e r e
p r o p e r t y in t e r e s t a t h ir d p a r t y h a s in t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e a u -
t h o r it y w h ic h ju s t ifie s t h e t h ir d -p a r t y c o n s e n t d o e s n o t r e s t
u p o n t h e la w o f p r o p e r t y , w it h it s a t t e n d a n t h is t o r ic a l a n d
le g a l r e fin e m e n t s , b u t r e s t s r a t h e r o n m u t u a l u s e o f t h e
p r o p e r t y b y p e r s o n s g e n e r a lly h a v in g jo in t a c c e s s o r c o n t r o l
f o r m o s t p u r p o s e s , s o t h a t it is r e a s o n a b le t o r e c o g n iz e t h a t
a n y o f t h e c o -in h a b it a n t s h a s t h e r ig h t t o p e r m it t h e in -
s p e c t io n in h is o w n r ig h t a n d t h a t t h e o t h e r s h a v e a s s u m e d
t h e r is k t h a t o n e o f t h e ir n u m b e r m ig h t p e r m it t h e c o m m o n
a r e a to b e s e a r c h e d .2 2 7
The issue frequently arises in the context of shared computer

use. The question, as with consent generally, turns on the
person's access or control of the computer, regardless of
whether the person is a spouse,228 parent,229 other family mem-
2 2 5
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . S m it h , 2 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 5 (C .D .
Ill. 1 9 9 8 ).
2 2 6
U n it e d S ta te s v . M a t lo c k , 4 1 5 U .S . 1 6 4 , 1 7 1 (1 9 7 4 ); s e e a ls o
F r a z ie r v . C u p p , 3 9 4 U .S . 7 3 1 , 7 4 0 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ( r e j e c t i n g i n q u i r y i n t o Am e t a p h y s i c a l s u b -
t le t ie s @ o f a r g u m e n t t h a t , b e c a u s e jo in t u s e r o f d u ffle b a g o n ly h a d a c t u a l p e r m is s io n
t o u s e o n e c o m p a r t m e n t , h e c o u ld n o t c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h o f w h o le b a g ) .
2 2 7
M a t lo c k , 4 1 5 U .S . a t 1 7 1 n .7 .
2 2 8
S e e W a ls h v . S t a t e , 5 1 2 S .E .2 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 -1 2 (G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 )
( d e f e n d a n t 's w i f e h a d a u t h o r it y t o c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r t h a t s h e p u r c h a s e d
a n d w a s a v a ila b le f o r u s e b y f a m ily ) .
2 2 9
S e e P e o p le v . B la ir , 7 4 8 N .E .2 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 4 -2 5 (Ill. A p p . C t . 2 0 0 1 )
(fa th e r , w h o h a d n o a c tu a l o r a p p a r e n t o w n e r s h ip o f c o m p u t e r , c o u ld n o t v a lid ly
ber,230 house mate,231 bailee,232 systems administra-tor,233 or

other third party,234 such as a computer repair person.235
The presence of password-protected files is an important
consideration in assessing a third party's authority to consent.
For example, in Trulock v. Freeh,236 the court held that a resi-
c o n s e n t t o s e iz u r e o f s o n 's c o m p u t e r ) .
2 3 0
S e e S t a t e v . G u t h r ie , 6 2 7 N .W .2 d 4 0 1 ( S . D . 2 0 0 1 ) ( s o n -in -la w p o s -
s e s s e d c o m m o n a u t h o r it y o v e r c o m p u te r a n d c o u ld v a lid ly c o n s e n t to it s s e iz u r e
w h e n h e h a d u n c o n d it io n a l a c c e s s a n d c o n t r o l o v e r it ) .
2 3 1
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . S m it h , 2 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 5 -1 6 (C .D .
Ill. 1 9 9 8 ) (h o u s e m a t e h a d a u t h o r it y t o c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h o f d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r ,
to w h ic h s h e h a d jo in t a c c e s s a n d w a s lo c a t e d in c o m m o n a r e a o f h o u s e ; a l-
t e r n a t iv e ly , g o v e r n m e n t a g e n ts r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d h o u s e m a te c o u ld c o n s e n t to
s e a r c h ).
2 3 2
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . J a m e s , 3 5 3 F .3 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 4 -1 5 (8 th C ir .
2 0 0 3 ) ( b a ile e , w h o a g r e e d t o s t o r e d is k s a n d w h o h a d b e e n la t e r d ir e c t e d t o d e s t r o y
t h e m , d id n o t h a v e a c t u a l o r a p p a r e n t a u t h o r it y t o p e r m it p o lic e t o t a k e a n d e x a m in e
th e m ).
2 3 3
A As y s t e m s a d m in is t r a t o r @ is th e p e r s o n Aw h o s e jo b is to k e e p [a
c o m p u t e r ] n e t w o r k r u n n in g s m o o t h ly , m o n it o r s e c u r it y , a n d r e p a ir t h e n e t w o r k w h e n
p r o b le m s a r is e . @ C C IP S M a n u a l, s u p r a n o te 4 6 , a t 2 2 . T h o s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s Ah a v e
` r o o t le v e l' a c c e s s to th e s y s te m s th e y a d m in is t e r , w h ic h e f f e c t iv e ly g r a n ts th e m
m a s te r k e y s to o p e n a n y a c c o u n t a n d r e a d a n y f ile o n t h e ir s y s t e m s . @ Id . A s th e
C C IP S m a n u a l e m p h a s i z e s , At h e p r i m a r y b a r r i e r t o s e a r c h i n g a n e t w o r k a c c o u n t p u r -
s u a n t to a s y s t e m a d m in is t r a t o r 's c o n s e n t is s t a t u t o r y , n o t c o n s t it u t io n a l. S y s t e m s
a d m in is t r a t o r s t y p ic a lly s e r v e a s a g e n ts o f ` p r o v id e r [ s ] o f e le c t r o n ic c o m m u n ic a t io n
s e r v ic e ' u n d e r th e E le c t r o n ic C o m m u n ic a t io n s P r iv a c y A c t (È C P A '), 1 8 U .S .C .
'' 2 7 0 1 - 2 7 1 2 . @ I d . A n y a tte m p t b y la w e n fo r c e m e n t to o b t a in a s y s t e m
a d m in is t r a t o r 's c o n s e n t m u s t c o m p ly w it h t h o s e p r o v is io n s . Id . a t 2 2 -2 3 . R e g a r d in g
th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t , it is d o u b t f u l t h a t a p e r s o n u s in g n e t w o r k s w ill b e fo u n d to
h a v e a r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in r e m o t e ly s t o r e d file s . S e e C C IP S M a n u a l,
s u p r a n o te 4 6 , a t 2 3 .
2 3 4
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . M e e k , 3 6 6 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 1 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )
( AL i k e p r iv a t e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t io n s , e it h e r p a r ty to a c h a t r o o m e x c h a n g e h a s th e
p o w e r t o s u r r e n d e r e a c h o t h e r ' s p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t t o a t h i r d p a r t y . @) .
2 3 5
U n it e d S t a t e s v . B a r t h , 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 8 (W .D . T e x . 1 9 9 8 )
(c o m p u te r r e p a ir p e r s o n d o e s n o t h a v e a c t u a l a u t h o r it y t o c o n s e n t to s e a r c h o f
c u s t o m e r 's h a r d d r iv e , h a v in g Ap o s s e s s i o n o f th e u n it f o r th e lim it e d p u r p o s e o f
r e p a ir @ a n d d id n o t h a v e a p p a r e n t a u t h o r it y w h e n p o lic e k n e w h is s t a t u s ) .
2 3 6
2 7 5 F .3 d 3 9 1 ( 4 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .
dent of a townhouse, Conrad, could not authorize the search of

password-protected files of another resident, Trulock, on a
computer that was jointly used when Conrad did not have
access to the passwords. The court reasoned by analogy to the
case of a mother who was found not to have authority to con-
sent to the search of a locked footlocker in her son's room, which
was located in a home they shared, and added: ABy using a
password, Trulock affirmatively intended to exclude Conrad
and others from his personal files.@237 On the other hand, the
lack of passwords to protect files has been held to defeat a claim
that the defendant had exclusive control of a computer and that
his housemate did not have authority to consent to search.238
2 3 7
Id . a t 4 0 3 .
2 3 8
U n it e d S ta te s v . S m it h , 2 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 6 (C .D . Ill.
1 9 9 8 ).
C. Particularity Claims
1. In General
The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant

describe with particularity Athe place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.@239 The particularity requirement
prevents a Ageneral, exploratory rummaging in a person's
belongings@240 and the seizure of one thing under a warrant de-
scribing another.241 It also Aàssures the individual whose
property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the
executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power
to search.'@242 Although the Supreme Court has observed that,
A[a]s to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of
the officer executing the warrant,@243 this admonition has not
been applied strictly by courts.244 A warrant satisfies the partic-
ularity requirement if it enables the executing officer to identify
with reasonable certainty those items that the issuing mag-
istrate has authorized him to seize.245 This is determined, inter
alia,246 by the nature of the activity charged247 and the nature
of the objects to be seized.248 Without a sufficiently specific war-
rant, the search is considered warrantless.249
2 3 9
U .S . C O N S T . a m e n d . IV .
2 4 0
C o o lid g e v . N e w H a m p s h ir e , 4 0 3 U .S . 4 4 3 , 4 6 7 (1 9 7 1 ).
2 4 1
M a r r o n v . U n it e d S ta te s , 2 7 5 U .S . 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 (1 9 2 7 ); s e e a ls o
L A F A V E , s u p r a n o te 9 5 , '4 .6 (a ) a t 6 0 5 ( u n d e r ly in g p u r p o s e s o f t h e p a r t ic u la r it y r e -
q u ir e m e n t a r e to p r e v e n t g e n e r a l s e a r c h e s a n d to p r e v e n t th e As e i z u r e o f o b je c t s
u n d e r t h e m i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e y f a l l w i t h i n t h e m a g i s t r a t e ' s a u t h o r i z a t i o n @) .
2 4 2
G r o h v . R a m ir e z , 5 4 0 U .S . 5 5 1 , 5 6 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t in g U n it e d S t a t e s
v . C h a d w ic k , 4 3 3 U .S . 1 , 9 (1 9 7 7 )).
2 4 3
M a r r o n , 2 7 5 U .S . a t 1 9 6 .
2 4 4
S e e , e . g . , D a v is v . G r a c e y , 1 1 1 F .3 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 8 ( 1 0 t h C ir . 1 9 9 7 )
( a Aw a r r a n t t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e i t e m s t o b e s e i z e d i n b r o a d o r g e n e r i c t e r m s m a y b e
v a lid w h e n t h e d e s c r ip t io n is a s s p e c ific a s t h e c ir c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e
2. Varieties of Computer Searches
a c t iv it y u n d e r in v e s t ig a t io n p e r m i t @) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R ile y , 9 0 6 F .2 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5 (2 d
C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( AO n c e a c a t e g o r y o f s e i z a b l e p a p e r s h a s b e e n a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e d , w i t h
th e d e s c r ip t io n d e lin e a t e d in p a r t b y a n illu s t r a t iv e lis t o f s e iz a b le it e m s , t h e F o u r t h
A m e n d m e n t is n o t v io la t e d b e c a u s e t h e o ffic e r s e x e c u t in g t h e w a r r a n t m u s t e x e r c is e
s o m e m i n i m a l j u d g m e n t . . . . @) .
2 4 5
M a r y la n d v . G a r r is o n , 4 8 0 U .S . 7 9 , 8 4 (1 9 8 7 ).
2 4 6
S e e L A F A V E s u p r a n o te 9 5 , '4 .6 (a ) a t 6 0 9 -1 3 ( s u m m a r iz in g m a n y
o f t h e g e n e r a l p r in c ip le s t h a t c a n b e d is t ille d f r o m t h e d e c id e d c a s e s ) .
2 4 7
S e e , e .g ., A n d r e s e n v . M a r y la n d , 4 2 7 U .S . 4 6 3 , 4 7 9 -8 0 (1 9 7 6 )
( p h r a s e s e e k in g a ll e v id e n c e w a s n o t g e n e r a l w h e n m o d ifie d b y s e n t e n c e r e f e r r in g t o
s p e c ific c r im e ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . J o h n s o n , 5 4 1 F .2 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 4 (8 th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) ;
U n it e d S t a t e s v . A b b e ll, 9 6 3 F . S u p p . 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 9 6 ( S . D . F la . 1 9 9 7 ) .
2 4 8
L A F A V E , s u p r a n o te 9 5 , ' 4 . 6 ( a ) a t 6 0 9 -1 1 ; s e e a ls o S t a t e v . W ib le ,
5 1 P .2 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 6 (W a s h . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( AC o u r t s e v a l u a t i n g a l l e g e d p a r t i c u l a r i t y v i o l a -
t io n s d is t in g u is h b e tw e e n in h e r e n t ly in n o c u o u s it e m s , s u c h a s [ a ] c o m p u t e r , a n d in -
h e r e n t ly ille g a l p r o p e r t y , s u c h a s c o n t r o lle d d a n g e r o u s s u b s ta n c e s . . . . In n o c u o u s
i t e m s r e q u i r e g r e a t e r p a r t i c u l a r i t y . @) .
2 4 9
G r o h , 5 4 6 U .S . a t 5 5 8 .
There are two varieties of computer searches: one is to seize

the equipment, that is, the computer hardware and software;
the other is to obtain the data contained in the computer
equipment, including on hard drives and various storage devic-
es, such as floppy disks. Helpful analysis in recognizing this
distinction is contained in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces
Tecum Dated November 15, 1993.250 Although decided under
Federal Rule of Procedure 17(c) rather than under the Fourth
Amendment, the court was presented with a subpoena that
demanded that X Corporation provide the grand jury with the
central processing unit, including the hard drive, of any com-
puters supplied by the corporation to specified employees. The
subpoena also demanded all computer-accessible data, includ-
ing floppy diskettes created by those employees or their assis-
tants. The court noted that, not only were corporate records
within the scope of the subpoena, so were personal documents.
The grand jury was investigating securities trading activities
and obstruction of justice. The court observed:
T h e s u b p o e n a a t is s u e h e r e is n o t f r a m e d in t e r m s o f
s p e c ifie d c a t e g o r ie s o f in f o r m a t io n . R a t h e r , it d e m a n d s
s p e c i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e d e v i c e s Bn a m e l y , p a r t i c u l a r
c o m p u t e r h a r d d r iv e s a n d flo p p y d is k s t h a t c o n t a in s o m e
d a t a c o n c e d e d ly ir r e le v a n t t o t h e g r a n d ju r y in q u ir y . . . . I f
t h e c a t e g o r ie s o f m a t e r ia ls p r o p e r ly a r e s e e n t o b e h a r d
d is k d r iv e s a n d flo p p y d is k s , t h e n . . . it is h ig h ly p r o b a b le
t h a t t h e s e d e v ic e s w ill c o n t a in s o m e r e le v a n t in f o r m a t io n . I f ,
o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e c a t e g o r ie s o f m a t e r ia ls p r o p e r ly a r e
s e e n t o b e t h e v a r io u s t y p e s o f d o c u m e n t s c o n t a in e d o n
t h e s e d e v ic e s , t h e n t h e s u b p o e n a w o u ld b e u n r e a s o n a b ly
b r o a d b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e e a s ily s e p a r a b le c a t e g o r ie s o f
r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t s t h a t u n d o u b t e d ly c o n t a in n o r e le v a n t
in f o r m a t io n . 2 5 1
Concluding that the grand jury was actually seeking documents

and not the devices that stored them, the court held that the
2 5 0
8 4 6 F . S u p p . 1 1 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 4 ).
2 5 1
Id . a t 1 2 .
subpoena was too broad.252 Similarly, under the Fourth Amend-

ment, it must be determined whether the computer is a mere
storage device for data253 or whether the equipment254 is the
object sought.
a. Searches for Computer Equipment
In the context of warrants issued to seize computer software

and hardware,255 the courts have often found fairly generic de-
scriptions of the items to be seized to be sufficient.256 For
example, merely labelling the objects to be seized as evidence
of, or an instrumentality257 of, a crime as Acomputer equip-
ment@258 or even Aequipment@259 relating to a specific crime has
sufficed. Of course, if computer equipment has been stolen and
that specific equipment is the object of the search, it would
have to be described with sufficient particularity to identify
it.260
2 5 2
Id . a t 1 3 -1 4 .
2 5 3
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . G a w r y s ia k , 9 7 2 F . S u p p . 8 5 3 , 8 6 0 -6 1
( D . N . J . 1 9 9 7 ) ( a p p r o v in g w a r r a n t to s e a r c h fo r d o c u m e n ts r e la t e d to w ir e fr a u d
in v e s t ig a t io n , in c lu d in g r e c o r d s s to r e d in m a g n e t ic o r e le c t r o n ic fo r m s ) , a ff'd , 1 7 8
F .3 d 1 2 8 1 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) .
2 5 4
S e e , e . g . , A r k a n s a s C h r o n ic le v . E a s le y , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 9 3
( E . D . V a . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c o m p a r in g s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y
c a s e s , w h e r e th o s e d e v ic e s a r e c o n s id e r e d in s t r u m e n t a lit ie s o f c r im e , w it h
c o m p u t e r s t h a t a r e t o o ls o f j o u r n a lis t 's t r a d e t h a t m a y o r m a y n o t c o n t a in e v id e n c e ) ;
U n it e d S ta te s v . H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 4 -8 5 (D . V t. 1 9 9 8 ) (w a r r a n t
a u t h o r iz in g w h o le s a le s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r s a n d r e la t e d d e v ic e s , w it h o u t s p e c ify in g
c r im e f o r w h ic h c o m p u t e r s w e r e s o u g h t , v io la t e d p a r t ic u la r it y r e q u ir e m e n t ) .
2 5 5
S e e , e . g . , C C IP S M a n u a l, s u p r a n o te 4 6 , a t 6 3 -6 4 ( d is c u s s in g t h a t ,
u n d e r F e d . R . C r im . P . 4 1 ( b ) , a g e n t s m a y o b t a in s e a r c h w a r r a n t s t o s e iz e c o m p u t e r
h a r d w a r e i f t h e h a r d w a r e is c o n t r a b a n d , e v id e n c e , o r a n in s t r u m e n t a lit y o r f r u it o f a
c r im e ) .
2 5 6
S e e , e .g ., S ta te v . L e h m a n , 7 3 6 A .2 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 0 -6 1 (M e . 1 9 9 9 )
( c o lle c t in g c a s e s ) .
2 5 7
S e e , e . g . , A r k a n s a s C h r o n ic le v . E a s le y , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 9 3
( E . D . V a . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c o m p a r in g s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r e q u ip m e n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s -
b. Searches for Data
e s , w h e r e th o s e d e v ic e s a r e c o n s id e r e d in s t r u m e n t a lit ie s o f c r im e , w it h c o m p u t e r s
t h a t a r e t o o ls o f a jo u r n a lis t 's t r a d e ) .
2 5 8
S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v . L a c y , 1 1 9 F .3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 5 -4 7 ( 9 t h C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ,
c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 2 3 U .S . 1 1 0 1 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( u p h o ld in g w a r r a n t is s u e d fo r s e a r c h o f
Ac o m p u t e r e q u i p m e n t a n d r e c o r d s @ t h a t r e s u l t e d in s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r , m o r e t h a n
1 0 0 c o m p u te r d is k s , a n d d o c u m e n ts w h e n g o v e r n m e n t k n e w th a t s u s p e c t h a d
d o w n lo a d e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y b u t d id n o t k n o w w h e r e t h e im a g e s h a d b e e n s t o r e d ,
w i t h t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d i n g t h a t At h i s t y p e o f g e n e r i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s a c c e p t a b l e ` w h e n
a m o r e p r e c is e d e s c r ip t io n is n o t p o s s i b l e ' @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d
5 3 2 , 5 3 5 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 5 2 7 U .S . 1 0 1 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( o b s e r v in g th a t
w a r r a n t is s u e d fo r A[ a ] n y a n d a ll c o m p u t e r s o ftw a r e a n d h a r d w a r e , . . . c o m p u te r
d is k s , d is k d r iv e s @ is e a s ily a d m in is t e r e d b y s e iz in g o ffic e r b a s e d o n o b je c t iv e c r it e r ia
w h e t h e r it e m is c o m p u t e r e q u ip m e n t ) .
2 5 9
D a v is v . G r a c e y , 1 1 1 F .3 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 8 -7 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 )
( c o m p u t e r s , m o n it o r s , k e y b o a r d s , m o d e m s , C D -R O M d r iv e s , a n d c h a n g e r s w e r e
w it h in th e m e a n in g o f w a r r a n t t h a t d ir e c t e d o f f ic e r s to s e a r c h f o r Ae q u i p m e n t . . .
p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o r d i s p l a y o f p o r n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l @) .
2 6 0
S e e , e .g ., S ta te v . T a n n e r , 5 3 4 S o . 2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (L a . A p p . 1 9 8 8 )
( w h e n d e f e n d a n t ille g a lly c o p ie d s o f t w a r e a n d o t h e r m a t e r ia ls b e lo n g in g t o F ir s t P a g e
B e e p e r S e r v ic e s , w a r r a n t n o t o v e r b r o a d t h a t a u t h o r iz e d s e iz u r e o f Aa l l o t h e r c o m -
p u te r r e la t e d s o ftw a r e @ th a t b o r e th e n a m e AF i r s t P a g e B e e p e r s @) . B u t c f . S t a t e v .
W a d e , 5 4 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 2 9 -3 0 ( F la . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) ( w a r r a n t , w h ic h r e s u lt e d in
s e iz u r e o f 5 3 it e m s , t h a t a u t h o r iz e d s e i z u r e o f Ac o m p u t e r e q u ip m e n t a n d b u s in e s s
r e c o r d s @ th a t h a d b e e n s t o le n fr o m C o n t r o lle d D a ta C o r p o r a t io n w a s s u f f ic ie n t ly
p a r t ic u la r w h e n it in c o r p o r a t e d b y r e fe r e n c e e x h ib it lis t in g th r e e s p e c ific it e m s b u t
w a s n o t lim it e d t o t h o s e it e m s ) .
As discussed at the beginning of this article,261 there are two

principal approaches to searches involving electronic data
stored on computers, that is, whether a computer is a form of a
container and the data in electronic storage mere forms of doc-
uments or whether such searches for data require a Aspecial
approach.@ Perhaps the most significant consequence of those
competing views is in the application of the Fourth
Amendment's particularity requirement. If data is considered a
form of a document and the computer is just a container hold-
ing that document, the traditional limitations on document
searches apply.262 On the other hand, if the court rejects such
an analogy and adopts the Aspecial approach@ to searches of
data on computers, then unique limitations are likely to be
imposed.263
D. Plain View
The permissible scope of a search is usually determined by the

objects sought under the warrant. If small objects (such as
fibers or bullets) are the target of the search, law enforcement
officials can look anywhere such an object may be hidden; if
only large objects are sought, the officials can only look where
that size of object can be concealed. In executing a search, it is
not uncommon for the police to encounter objects that are in-
criminating or have evidentiary value for which they did not
have prior authority to search or seize. Under such circum-
stances, the plain view doctrine may justify seizure of the ob-
ject. That doctrine has three requirements: a prior valid intru-
sion; observing an object in plain view; and the incriminating
character of the object must be immediately apparent.264
2 6 1
2 6 2
2 6 3
S e e d is c u s s io n s u p r a a t 2 0 2 -2 0 .
2 6 4
H o r t o n v . C a lifo r n ia , 4 9 6 U .S . 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 -3 7 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e r e is n o r e -
q u ir e m e n t t h a t t h e s p o t t in g o f t h e o b je c t b e in a d v e r t e n t . Id . ; s e e a ls o Iv a t u r y v . S t a t e ,
7 9 2 S .W .2 d 8 4 5 , 8 5 1 (T e x . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) (b a s e d o n w a r r a n t to s e a r c h s a fe t y
In the context of searches of computers for electronic evidence,

if the police are otherwise validly in position to observe a
computer screen, their observations of what is depicted on the
screen will be considered in plain view.265 As to observations of
the contents of unopened files, what is in plain view is
determined by whether the court accepts the view that data are
mere types of document searches,266 and hence the official can
look at all data to ascertain its value when executing a warrant
to search for documents,267 or whether the court takes a special
d e p o s it b o x d u r in g e s p io n a g e in v e s t ig a t io n , d is c o v e r y o f s p e c ia l t y p e o f c o m p u te r
t a p e in b o x u s e d in d e f e n s e in d u s t r y in p la in v ie w ) .
2 6 5
S e e S ta te v . M a y s , 8 2 9 N .E .2 d 7 7 3 , 7 7 9 ( O h io C t . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( o b -
s e r v a t io n s o f in f o r m a t io n o n c o m p u t e r s c r e e n d u r in g c o n s e n t s e a r c h o f h o m e in p la in
v ie w ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . T a n k s le y , 5 0 M .J . 6 0 9 , 6 2 0 ( N -M . C t . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( o b -
s e r v a t io n s o f in f o r m a t io n o n c o m p u t e r s c r e e n m a d e d u r in g s e a r c h o f o ffic e w e r e in
p la in v ie w ) ; P e o p le v . B la ir , 7 4 8 N .E .2 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 (Ill. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (w h e n p o lic e
o b s e r v e d ` b o o k m a r k s w it h r e f e r e n c e s to t e e n a g e r s a n d s o f o r t h , ' t h e y d id n o t h a v e
p r o b a b le c a u s e t o b e lie v e t h a t c o m p u t e r c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y ) ; S t a t e v . O n e
P io n e e r C D -R O M C h a n g e r, 8 9 1 P .2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 4 -0 5 ( O k la . C iv . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( d u r in g
e x e c u t io n o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t b a s e d o n a lle g a t io n s th a t s u s p e c t w a s d is t r ib u t in g
p o r n o g r a p h ic m a t e r ia l, p o lic e o b s e r v a t io n s o f c o m p u te r m o n it o r Ad i s p l a y i n g th e
w o r d s ` v ie w in g ' a n d / o r ` c o p y in g ' w it h d e s c r ip t io n s s u c h a s `le s b ia n s e x ' a n d / o r ` o r a l
s e x '@ e s t a b lis h e d t h a t t h e e q u ip m e n t a n d it s p o s s ib le c r im in a l u s e w e r e in p la in v ie w ) .
C f . U n it e d S t a t e s v . T u r n e r , 1 6 9 F .3 d 8 4 , 8 8 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( o b s e r v a t io n o f o f f ic e r
d u r in g c o n s e n s u a l s e a r c h o f a p a r tm e n t o f p h o to g r a p h o f a n u d e w o m a n o n c o m -
p u t e r s c r e e n d id n o t ju s t ify s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r f o r o t h e r in c r im in a t in g file s ) ; S t a t e v .
B r o w n , 8 1 3 N .E .2 d 9 5 6 , 9 6 0 -6 2 ( O h io C t . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in c r im in a t in g n a tu r e o f
c o m p u t e r s a n d t h e ir c o n t e n t s n o t im m e d ia t e ly a p p a r e n t b a s e d o n m e r e o b s e r v a t io n
o f tw o c o m p u te r s in d e f e n d a n t 's h o u s e , w it h n o p o r n o g r a p h y d is p la y e d o n s c r e e n ,
w h e n p o lic e m e r e ly k n e w t h a t p o r n o g r a p h ic m a t e r ia l h a d b e e n p r in t e d fr o m s o m e
c o m p u t e r ) . O f c o u r s e , i f t h e r e is n o p r io r in t r u s io n a t a l l , t h a t is , n o p r io r s e a r c h o r
s e iz u r e w it h in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, th e n a n o f f i c e r 's u s e o f h e r
s ig h t t o o b s e r v e s o m e t h in g is n o t a s e a r c h . S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . D a v id , 7 5 6 F .
S u p p . 1 3 8 5 , 1 3 9 0 ( D . N e v . 1 9 9 1 ) ( a g e n t 's lo o k in g o v e r d e f e n d a n t 's s h o u ld e r t o s e e
p a s s w o r d f o r d e f e n d a n t 's c o m p u t e r n o t s e a r c h ) .
2 6 6
2 6 7
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . G r a y , 7 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 1 n .1 1
(E .D . V a . 1 9 9 9 ) (w h e n a g e n t is e n g a g e d in As y s t e m a t i c s e a r c h @ o f c o m p u te r file s
p u r s u a n t to w a r r a n t, a n y e v id e n c e d is c o v e r e d c o u ld b e s e iz e d u n d e r p la in v ie w
approach268 to computer searches and imposes limitations on

the search by, for example, file name or file type.269 It also
depends on how the court defines the relevant container.270
d o c t r in e ) ; C o m m o n w e a lt h v . H in d s , 7 6 8 N .E .2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 2 ( M a s s . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p o lic e
h a d r ig h t t o o p e n f i l e t h a t o f f i c e r b e lie v e d c o n t a in e d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y b a s e d o n f i l e 's
n a m e d u r in g s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r fo r e m a il; a c c o r d in g ly , c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y w a s in
p la in v ie w ) ; S t a t e v . S c h r o e d e r , 6 1 3 N .W .2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 6 (W is . C t . A p p . 2 0 0 0 )
( r e je c t in g lim it a t io n s o n s e a r c h b a s e d o n file n a m e s a n d c o n c lu d in g t h a t , d u r in g s y s -
t e m a t ic s e a r c h o f a ll u s e r -c r e a t e d file s in e x e c u t in g s e a r c h w a r r a n t fo r e v id e n c e o f
o n lin e h a r a s s m e n t a n d d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t , o p e n in g file c o n t a in in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y
in p la in v ie w ) ; F r a s ie r v . S ta te , 7 9 4 N .E .2 d 4 4 9 , 4 6 2 -6 6 (In d . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
( r e je c t in g lim it a t io n s o n a s e a r c h b a s e d o n file n a m e s a n d e x t e n s io n s , a n d c o n c lu d in g
t h a t p la in v ie w d o c t r in e a p p lie d w h e n p o lic e o p e n e d file a n d o b s e r v e d c h ild p o r n o g -
r a p h y d u r in g e x e c u t io n o f w a r r a n t p e r m it t in g p o lic e t o e x a m in e n o t e s a n d r e c o r d s f o r
e v id e n c e o f d r u g t r a ffic k in g ) . C f . U n it e d S ta te s v . W o n g , 3 3 4 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 8 (9 th
C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( u n d e r w a r r a n t p e r m it t in g s e a r c h o f g r a p h ic file s f o r e v id e n c e o f m u r d e r ,
o b s e r v a t io n s o f file s c o n t a in in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y in p la in v ie w ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v .
T u c k e r , 3 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 2 -0 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p a r o le a g r e e m e n t a u t h o r iz e d
s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r ; u p o n v ie w in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o n it , p la in v ie w p e r m it t e d
s e iz u r e ) .
2 6 8
2 6 9
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . C a r e y , 1 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 2 -7 5 (1 0 th C ir .
1 9 9 9 ) ( o p e n in g o f file s c o n t a in in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y , a t le a s t a f t e r fir s t file w a s
o p e n e d , d u r in g e x e c u t io n o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t fo r d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e r e la t in g t o
d r u g d e a lin g , n o t ju s t ifie d b y p la in v ie w d o c t r i n e b e c a u s e f i l e s w e r e Ac l o s e d @ a n d Au n -
a m b ig u o u s ly @ n a m e d ) . C f . U n it e d S t a t e s v . A b b e ll, 9 1 4 F . S u p p . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (S .D .
F la . 1 9 9 5 ) (in c r im in a l p r o s e c u t io n w h e r e la r g e v o lu m e o f c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d d a t a
s e iz e d fr o m d e f e n d a n t 's la w o ffic e , s p e c ia l m a s te r w o u ld d e t e r m in e w h e th e r
d o c u m e n ts a n d d a ta w e r e r e s p o n s iv e t o w a r r a n t o r f e ll w it h in e x c e p t io n to w a r r a n t
r e q u ir e m e n t ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . M a x w e ll, 4 5 M .J . 4 0 6 , 4 2 2 (C .A .A .F . 1 9 9 6 ) (w h e r e
o ffic e r u s e d p e r s o n a l c o m p u te r to t r a n s p o r t o b s c e n it y a n d c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y , p la in
v ie w d o c t r in e in a p p lic a b le t o s e a r c h o f c o m p u t e r file s u n d e r s c r e e n n a m e n o t lis t e d
in w a r r a n t ) ; s e e a ls o B r e n n e r & F r e d e r ik s e n d , s u p r a n o t e 1 8 , a t 8 9 -1 0 6 ( a d v o c a t in g
s ig n ific a n t r e s t r ic t io n s o n a p p lic a t io n o f p la in v ie w d o c t r in e t o c o m p u t e r s e a r c h e s ) .
2 7 0
E. Execution Issues
1. On-site/Off-site Searches; Intermingled Documents
One question that has often arisen is whether the government

may remove the computer, including its hard drive and disks, to
the police station for detailed forensic examination. Answering
this question, courts have fairly consistently held that, due to
the intermingling of legitimate and illegitimate items, the
technical difficulty of examination, and the volume of
information seized, temporary seizures of the computer and
removal off site for examination are permitted.271 Underlying
the courts' analysis is the fundamental premise that Acurrent
technology does not permit proper on-site examination of com-
puter files.@272 For example, in United States v. Hill,273 the court
concluded that the police were not required to bring with them
equipment capable of reading computer storage media and an
officer competent to operate it; the court observed:
2 7 1
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . W a ls e r , 2 7 5 F .3 d 9 8 1 , 9 8 5 (1 0 th C ir .
2 0 0 1 ) ( o b s e r v in g t h a t s e iz u r e is a p p r o p r ia t e in v a r ie t y o f c ir c u m s t a n c e s , in c lu d in g
At h e im p r a c t ic a lit y o f o n -s it e s o r t in g @ a n d b e c a u s e Ac o m p u t e r e v i d e n c e is v u ln e r a b le
to t a m p e r in g o r d e s t r u c t i o n @) ; G u e s t v . L e i s , 2 5 5 F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 5 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )
(d u e to At e c h n i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f c o n d u c t i n g a c o m p u t e r s e a r c h i n a s u s p e c t ' s h o m e , @
p e r m is s ib le to s e iz e c o m p u te r s a n d t h e ir c o n te n ts a n d r e m o v e to a llo w p o lic e to
lo c a t e r e le v a n t d a t a ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . H a y, 2 3 1 F .3 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )
( u p h o ld in g , in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e , w a r r a n t a u t h o r iz in g s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r s y s -
te m b e c a u s e o f th e At i m e , e x p e r t i s e , a n d c o n t r o lle d e n v ir o n m e n t r e q u ir e d fo r a
p r o p e r a n a l y s i s @) ; U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 5 ( AA s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , t h e s e i z u r e a n d
s u b s e q u e n t o f f -p r e m is e s s e a r c h o f th e c o m p u te r a n d a ll a v a ila b le d is k s w a s a b o u t
t h e n a r r o w e s t d e fin a b le s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e r e a s o n a b ly lik e ly t o o b t a in t h e im a g e s . A
s u f f ic ie n t c h a n c e o f fin d in g s o m e n e e d le s in t h e c o m p u t e r h a y s t a c k w a s e s t a b lis h e d
b y th e p r o b a b le -c a u s e s h o w in g in th e w a r r a n t a p p lic a t io n ; a n d a s e a r c h o f a c o m -
p u t e r a n d c o -lo c a t e d d is k s is n o t in h e r e n t ly m o r e in t r u s iv e t h a n t h e p h y s ic a l s e a r c h o f
a n e n t i r e h o u s e f o r a w e a p o n o r d r u g s . @) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S i s s l e r , 9 6 6 F .2 d 1 4 5 5
(6 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 5 0 6 U .S . 1 0 7 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( p o lic e p e r m it t e d to r e m o v e
c o m p u te r s fr o m d e f e n d a n t 's r e s id e n c e to c o n t in u e s e a r c h o f f -s it e ) ; M a h lb e r g v .
M e n t z e r , 9 6 8 F .2 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 5 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( s e iz u r e o f 1 6 0 c o m p u te r d is k s
p e r m is s ib le w h e n s e a r c h in g fo r tw o c o m p u te r file s b e c a u s e o f p o s s ib ilit y th a t
c o m p u te r w a s `b o b b y -t r a p p e d ' t o e r a s e it s e lf a n d b e c a u s e it w a s u n k n o w n w h ic h
d is k s c o n t a in e d th e file s ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . S c h a n d l, 9 4 7 F .2 d 4 6 2 , 4 6 5 -6 6 (1 1 th
C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 5 0 4 U .S . 9 7 5 ( 1 9 9 2 ) (in t a x e v a s io n c a s e , w h ic h r e q u ir e s
Ac a r e f u l a n a l y s i s a n d s y n t h e s is o f a la r g e n u m b e r o f d o c u m e n t s , @ it m ig h t b e m o r e
d is r u p t iv e to c o n d u c t th o r o u g h s e a r c h o f e a c h in d iv id u a l d o c u m e n t a n d c o m p u te r
d is k b e f o r e r e m o v in g it ; t o in s is t o n s u c h a p r a c t ic e w o u ld s u b s t a n t ia lly in c r e a s e t im e
to c o n d u c t s e a r c h , t h e r e b y a g g r a v a t in g it s in t r u s iv e n e s s ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . M a a li,
3 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 4 6 ( M . D . F l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ( AW a r r a n t s a u t h o r iz in g s e iz u r e o f
c o m p u t e r e q u ip m e n t f o r la t e r o f f -s it e s e a r c h o f t h e ir c o n t e n t s f o r e v id e n c e . . . h a v e
b e e n u p h e ld , e s p e c ia lly w h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e s u p p o r t in g a ffid a v it e x p la in e d t h e r e a s o n
s u c h o f f -s it e a n a ly s is w a s n e c e s s a r y . @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . L e v e to , 3 4 3 F . S u p p . 2 d
4 3 4 , 4 4 9 -5 0 (W .D . P a . 2 0 0 4 ) (in la r g e ta x fr a u d s c h e m e , in v o lv in g m a n y d o c u -
m e n ts a n d c o m p u te r file s , o f f -s it e in s p e c t io n p e r m is s ib le ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . A lb e r t ,
1 9 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 8 -7 9 ( D . M a s s . 2 0 0 2 ) ( u p h o ld in g o f f -s it e s e a r c h b e c a u s e
At h e m e c h a n i c s o f s e a r c h i n g a h a r d d r i v e b y v i e w i n g a l l o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i t c o n t a i n s
c a n n o t b e r e a d ily a c c o m p lis h e d o n s i t e @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d
5 7 4 , 5 8 3 ( D . V t . 1 9 9 8 ) ( AO f t e n i t i s s i m p l y i m p r a c t i c a l t o s e a r c h a c o m p u t e r a t t h e
s e a r c h s it e b e c a u s e o f th e t im e a n d e x p e r t is e r e q u ir e d to u n lo c k a ll s o u r c e s o f
i n f o r m a t i o n . @) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . Y u n g , 7 8 6 F . S u p p . 1 5 6 1 , 1 5 6 9 (D . K a n . 1 9 9 2 )
(c o m p u te r file s Ac l e a r l y c o u ld n o t b e in d iv id u a lly r e v ie w e d p r i o r t o c o m p le t io n o f th e
s e a r c h @) ; P e o p l e v . G a l l , 3 0 P .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 4 -5 5 ( C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ) ( s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r s
a n d la t e r s e a r c h o f f s it e u p h e ld ) . C f . U n it e d S t a t e s v . G a w r y s ia k , 9 7 2 F . S u p p . 8 5 3 ,
8 6 6 ( D . N . J . 1 9 9 7 ) ( AA r e a s o n a b le -s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r file s m a y in c lu d e c o p y in g
t h o s e file s o n t o a d is k o n t h e s c e n e , f o r la t e r t im e -c o n s u m in g r e v ie w o f t h e in d e x o f
d o c u m e n t s t o c u ll t h e r e le v a n t t im e p e r i o d s a n d s u b je c t m a t t e r s w h ile r e t u r n in g t h e
r e m a i n d e r . @) , a f f ' d , 1 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; C C IP S M a n u a l, s u p r a n o te 4 6 ,
a t 6 4 -6 6 ( d is c u s s in g p o s s ib le s e a r c h s t r a t e g ie s w h e r e th e h a r d w a r e is a m e r e
s t o r a g e d e v ic e f o r e le c t r o n ic e v id e n c e ) . B u t s e e B r e n n e r & F r e d e r ik s e n , s u p r a n o t e
1 8 , a t 4 5 -8 9 ( e x t e n s iv e ly a n a ly z in g t h e o f f / o n s it e is s u e a n d a d v o c a t in g t h e v ie w th a t
a n o f f - s i t e s e a r c h As h o u l d b e t r e a t e d a s a n Au n u s u a l m e a s u r e @ a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o -
r iz e d b y a m a g is t r a t e , id . a t 7 6 , a n d th a t c o m p u te r h a r d w a r e c a n n o t b e s e iz e d
a b s e n t e x p la n a t io n in w a r r a n t a p p lic a t io n o f t e c h n ic a l r e a s o n s w h y t h e s e a r c h c a n n o t
b e c o n d u c te d o n -s it e o r c o n d u c t e d o f f -s it e u s in g f o r e n s ic b a c k -u p c o p ie s o f d a t a , id .
a t 7 5 ).
2 7 2
U n it e d S ta te s v . A l-M a r r i, 2 3 0 F . S u p p . 5 3 5 , 5 4 1 n .3 (S .D .N .Y .
2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a ls o U n it e d S t a t e s v . C a m p o s , 2 2 1 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 7 ( 1 0 t h C ir . 2 0 0 0 )
D o in g s o w o u ld h a v e p o s e d s ig n ific a n t t e c h n ic a l p r o b le m s
a n d m a d e th e s e a r c h m o r e in t r u s iv e . . . . B e c a u s e
c o m p u t e r s in c o m m o n u s e r u n a v a r ie t y o f o p e r a t in g s y s -
t e m s Cv a r i o u s v e r s i o n s o r f l a v o r s o f W i n d o w s , M a c O S a n d
L i n u x , t o n a m e o n l y t h e m o s t c o m m o n Cp o l i c e w o u l d h a v e
h a d t o b r in g w it h t h e m a c o m p u t e r ( o r c o m p u t e r s ) e q u ip p e d
t o r e a d n o t o n ly a ll o f t h e m a jo r m e d ia t y p e s , b u t a ls o file s
e n c o d e d b y a ll m a jo r o p e r a t in g s y s t e m s . B e c a u s e o p e r a t in g
s y s t e m s , m e d ia t y p e s , f ile s y s t e m s a n d file t y p e s a r e c o n -
t in u a lly e v o lv in g , p o lic e d e p a r t m e n t s w o u ld f r e q u e n t ly h a v e t o
m o d ify t h e ir c o m p u t e r s t o k e e p t h e m u p -t o -d a t e . T h is w o u ld
n o t b e a n in s u p e r a b le o b s t a c le f o r la r g e r p o lic e d e p a r t m e n t s
a n d f e d e r a l la w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c ie s , b u t it w o u ld p o s e a
s ig n ific a n t b u r d e n o n s m a lle r a g e n c ie s .
E v e n i f t h e p o lic e w e r e t o b r in g w it h t h e m a p r o p e r ly
e q u ip p e d c o m p u t e r , a n d s o m e o n e c o m p e t e n t t o o p e r a t e it ,
( q u o t in g F B I a g e n t 's e x p la n a t io n a s to w h y it w a s n o t u s u a lly f e a s ib le to s e a r c h fo r
p a r t ic u la r c o m p u t e r f i l e s in p e r s o n 's h o m e , w h ic h in c lu d e d t h e v o lu m e o f i n f o r m a t io n ,
u s e r a t t e m p t s t o c o n c e a l c r im in a l e v id e n c e , n e e d f o r a n e x p e r t e x a m in e r , c o n t r o lle d
e n v ir o n m e n t , w id e v a r ie t y o f c o m p u t e r h a r d w a r e a n d s o ftw a r e , a n d v u ln e r a b ly o f
e v id e n c e t o t a m p e r in g o r d e s t r u c t io n ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . G r e e n e , 5 6 M .J . 8 1 7 , 8 2 3 -
2 4 ( N -M . C t . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( d is c u s s in g e x p e r t w it n e s s t e s t im o n y o n e f f e c t iv e
f o r e n s ic a n a ly s is , in c lu d in g d a n g e r o f d e s t r u c t io n o f e v id e n c e w h e n c o n d u c t in g o n -s it e
e x a m in a t io n s a n d n e e d fo r o f f -s it e a n a ly s is to p r o t e c t e v id e n c e ) ; G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d a t
1 5 4 -5 5 ( AI n a d d it io n to th e p r o b le m s o f v o lu m e a n d c o m m in g lin g , t h e s o r t in g o f
t e c h n o lo g ic a l d o c u m e n t s m a y r e q u ir e a s e a r c h t o b e p e r f o r m e d a t a n o t h e r lo c a t io n
`b e c a u s e t h a t a c t io n r e q u ir e s a d e g r e e o f e x p e r t is e b e y o n d th a t o f th e e x e c u t in g
o f f i c e r s , ' n o t o n l y t o f i n d t h e d o c u m e n t s b u t t o a v o i d d e s t r u c t i o n o r o v e r s e a r c h i n g . @) .
C f . U n it e d S ta te s v . G r e a th o u s e , 2 9 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 5 (D . O r .
1 2 7 5 ) ( a lt h o u g h a c k n o w le d g in g th a t n u m e r o u s c a s e s h a v e u p h e ld th e Aw h o l e s a l e
s e iz u r e o f c o m p u t e r s a n d c o m p u t e r d is k s a n d r e c o r d s f o r la t e r r e v ie w f o r p a r t ic u la r
e v i d e n c e a s t h e o n l y r e a s o n a b l e m e a n s o f c o n d u c t i n g a s e a r c h , @ o b s e r v i n g At h a t t h i s
m a y n o t a lw a y s b e t r u e d u e to t e c h n o lo g ic a l d e v e lo p m e n t s @ a n d s t a t in g t h a t , in th e
a p p r o p r i a t e s i t u a t i o n , At h e r e m a y w e l l b e a n o b l i g a t i o n @ t o u s e a c o m p u t e r f o r e n s i c s
p r o g r a m At o m o r e n a r r o w l y t a i l o r t h e s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e @) ; H u n t e r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d
a t 5 8 3 ( Au n t i l t e c h n o l o g y a n d la w e n f o r c e m e n t e x p e r t is e r e n d e r o n -s it e c o m p u te r
r e c o r d s s e a r c h in g b o th p o s s ib le a n d p r a c t ic a l, w h o le s a le s e iz u r e s , i f a d e q u a t e ly
s a f e g u a r d e d , m u s t o c c u r @) .
2 7 3
3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 1 (C .D . C a l. 2 0 0 4 ).
u s in g it w o u ld p o s e t w o s ig n ific a n t p r o b le m s . F ir s t , t h e r e is
a s e r io u s r is k t h a t t h e p o lic e m ig h t d a m a g e t h e s t o r a g e
m e d iu m o r c o m p r o m is e t h e in t e g r it y o f t h e e v id e n c e b y
a t t e m p t in g t o a c c e s s t h e d a t a a t t h e s c e n e . A s e v e r y o n e
w h o h a s a c c id e n t a lly e r a s e d a c o m p u t e r file k n o w s , it is
f a ir ly e a s y t o m a k e m is t a k e s w h e n o p e r a t in g c o m p u t e r
e q u ip m e n t , e s p e c ia lly e q u ip m e n t o n e is n o t in t im a t e ly
f a m ilia r w it h . T h e r is k t h a t t h e o ffic e r t r y in g t o r e a d t h e
s u s p e c t 's s t o r a g e m e d iu m o n t h e p o lic e la p t o p w ill m a k e a
w r o n g m o v e a n d e r a s e w h a t is o n t h e d is k is n o t t r iv ia l. E v e n
i f t h e o ffic e r e x e c u t e s h is t a s k fla w le s s ly , t h e r e m ig h t b e a
p o w e r f a ilu r e o r e q u ip m e n t m a lf u n c t io n t h a t c o u ld a f f e c t t h e
c o n t e n t s o f t h e m e d iu m b e in g s e a r c h e d . F o r t h a t r e a s o n ,
e x p e r t s w ill m a k e a b a c k -u p c o p y o f t h e m e d iu m b e f o r e t h e y
s t a r t m a n ip u la t in g it s c o n t e n t s . V a r io u s o t h e r t e c h n ic a l
p r o b le m s m ig h t a r is e ; w it h o u t t h e n e c e s s a r y t o o ls a n d
e x p e r t is e t o d e a l w it h t h e m , a n y e f f o r t t o r e a d c o m p u t e r
file s a t t h e s c e n e is f r a u g h t w it h d iffic u lt y a n d r is k .
S e c o n d , t h e p r o c e s s o f s e a r c h in g t h e file s a t t h e s c e n e
c a n t a k e a lo n g t im e . T o b e c e r t a in t h a t t h e m e d iu m in q u e s -
t io n d o e s n o t c o n t a in a n y s e iz a b le m a t e r ia l, t h e o ffic e r s
w o u ld h a v e t o e x a m in e e v e r y o n e o f w h a t m a y b e t h o u s a n d s
o f f i l e s o n a d i s k Ca p r o c e s s t h a t c o u l d t a k e m a n y h o u r s a n d
p e r h a p s d a y s . T a k in g t h a t m u c h t im e t o c o n d u c t t h e s e a r c h
w o u ld n o t o n ly im p o s e a s ig n ific a n t a n d u n ju s t ifie d b u r d e n o n
p o lic e r e s o u r c e s , it w o u ld a ls o m a k e t h e s e a r c h m o r e in -
t r u s iv e . P o lic e w o u ld h a v e t o b e p r e s e n t o n t h e s u s p e c t 's
p r e m is e s w h ile t h e s e a r c h w a s in p r o g r e s s , a n d t h is w o u ld
n e c e s s a r ily in t e r f e r e w it h t h e s u s p e c t 's a c c e s s t o h is h o m e
o r b u s in e s s . I f t h e s e a r c h t o o k h o u r s o r d a y s , t h e in t r u s io n
w o u ld c o n t in u e f o r t h a t e n t ir e p e r io d , c o m p r o m is in g t h e
F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t v a lu e o f m a k in g p o lic e s e a r c h e s a s b r ie f
a n d n o n -in t r u s iv e a s p o s s ib le . 2 7 4
Because of these considerations, the court concluded that the

police were not required to examine the electronic storage me-
dia at the scene to determine which contained child pornogra-
phy and which did not but were, instead Aentitled to seize all
2 7 4
Id . a t 1 0 8 8 -8 9 .
such media and take them to the police station for examination
by an expert.@275
Nonetheless, courts have expressed concerns about such
wholesale seizures due to the disruption of businesses, profes-
sional practices, and personal lives that such seizures entail.276
Accordingly, courts have been cautious in their approval of such
practices.277 Some urge that the government copy the data and
return the equipment as soon as possible.278 A few courts
appear to require a second warrant before searching when the
government seizes intermingled documents.279
2 7 5
Id . a t 1 0 8 9 .
2 7 6
H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 8 3 .
2 7 7
S e e , e .g ., U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 5 .
2 7 8
H u n te r , 1 3 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 8 3 . C f. L e v e to , 3 4 3 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 4 1
(in la r g e ta x fr a u d s c h e m e , in v o lv in g m a n y d o c u m e n ts a n d c o m p u t e r file s , f a c t u a lly
d e s c r ib in g h o w e x e c u t i n g o f f i c i a l s t o o k Ac o n s i d e r a b l e s t e p s @ t o m i n i m i z e Au p h e a v a l @ o f
v e t e r i n a r ia n 's b u s in e s s , in c lu d in g c o p y in g c o m p u t e r file s r a t h e r t h a n r e m o v in g c o m -
p u t e r s ) . B u t c f . M a la p a n is v . R e g a n , 3 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 1 (D . C o n n . 2 0 0 4 )
( f a ilu r e o f p o lic e to r e tu r n c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t d o e s n o t im p lic a t e F o u r th
A m e n d m e n t ; it is , in s t e a d , a n a ly z e d u n d e r p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s ) ; L M B u s . A s s o c .
v . R o s s , N o . 0 4 -C V -6 1 2 C J S 2 0 0 4 W L 2 6 0 9 1 8 2 , a t * 5 (W .D .N .Y . N o v . 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 )
(s a m e ).
2 7 9
S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S t a t e s v . C a r e y , 1 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 5 ( 1 0 t h C ir .
1 9 9 9 ) . T h is r e q u ir e m e n t is b a s e d o n p r e c e d e n t r e q u ir in g a s e c o n d w a r r a n t w h e n
th e p o lic e s e iz e in t e r m in g le d d o c u m e n ts . S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . S h illin g , 8 2 6 F .2 d
1 3 6 5 , 1 3 6 9 -7 0 (4 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( a lt h o u g h s t a t in g t h a t Aw e c a n n o t e a s ily c o n d o n e
th e w h o le s a le r e m o v a l o f file c a b in e t s a n d d o c u m e n ts n o t c o v e r e d b y th e w a r r a n t,@
c o n c lu d in g t h a t t h e r e w e r e le g it im a t e p r a c t ic a l c o n c e r n s t h a t p r o m p t e d t h e r e m o v a l
o f file c a b in e t s a n d o b s e r v in g t h a t s e iz u r e n o t b a s e d o n in t e n t t o e n g a g e in fis h in g
e x p e d it io n ) ; U n it e d S ta te s v . T a m u r a , 6 9 4 F .2 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 5 -9 6 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 )
( s u g g e s t in g th a t w h e n d o c u m e n ts a r e s o in t e r m in g le d t h a t s o r t in g o n s it e is n o t
f e a s ib le , F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t v io la t io n s c a n b e a v o id e d b y s e a lin g d o c u m e n t s a n d o b -
t a in in g a d d it io n a l s e a r c h w a r r a n t). O th e r c o u r ts r e je c t th a t r e q u ir e m e n t fo r
d o c u m e n t s e a r c h e s . S e e , e . g . , U n it e d S ta te s v . H a r g u s , 1 2 8 F .3 d 1 3 5 8 , 1 3 6 3
(1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( s e iz u r e o f e n t ir e file c a b in e t p e r m is s ib le , in c lu d in g in t e r m ix e d w a r -
r a n t -s p e c ifie d a n d u n s p e c ifie d d o c u m e n t s ) . S o m e c o u r t s h a v e r a is e d t h e s e c o n c e r n s
in th e c o m p u te r c o n te x t b u t h a v e n o t s p e c ific a lly a d d r e s s e d th e is s u e . S e e , e . g . ,
U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 6 ( AT h i s p r o b l e m a r is e s in a v a r ie t y o f d iffe r e n t c o n t e x t s a n d
in m a n y p e r m u t a t io n s ; m a t t e r s o f d e g r e e a r e in v o lv e d a n d t h e r e is p r o b a b ly n o s in g le
2. Use of Experts
Because of the complicated nature of the evidence and

equipment that computer-related searches give rise to, govern-
mental authorities sometimes use computer experts to facilitate
the execution of a search warrant. Challenges to the use of such
experts, although few, have been consistently rejected.280 The
civilian, of course, must be Aserving a legitimate investigative
function,@281 including using his or her special expertise to
identify Aproperty of a technical nature not generally familiar to
law enforcement officers.@282 Approval has even extended to
situations where the private experts performed the search
outside of the presence of law enforcement officials.283
r u le t h a t r e s o lv e s a ll s u c h s i t u a t i o n s . @) . C f . H i l l , 3 2 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 0 9 0 ( AT h e
w a r r a n t h e r e a u t h o r iz e d p r e c is e ly s u c h a s e iz u r e o f in t e r m in g le d m a t e r ia ls t h a t a r e
d i f f ic u lt a n d t im e - c o n s u m in g t o s e p a r a t e o n - s it e . T h a t t h e o f f i c e r s e e k in g t h e w a r r a n t
d id n o t m a k e a s p e c ific s h o w in g t o t h is e f f e c t is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e : T h e d iffic u lt ie s o f
e x a m in in g a n d s e p a r a t in g e le c t r o n ic m e d ia a t th e s c e n e a r e w e ll k n o w n . I t i s
d o u b t le s s w it h t h e s e c o n s id e r a t io n s in m in d t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t ju d g e a u t h o r iz e d s e i-
z u r e o f a ll o f d e f e n d a n t 's s t o r a g e m e d ia , n o t m e r e ly t h o s e c o n t a in in g c o n t r a b a n d o r
e v id e n c e o f c r i m e . @) ; G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d a t 1 5 4 -5 5 ( o b s e r v in g th a t th e p r o b le m o f
Ap r o p e r l y l i m i t i n g a s e a r c h o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f a l a w f u l l y s e i z e d c o m p u t e r @ w a s n o t a t
is s u e b e c a u s e s e a r c h p u r s u a n t t o s e c o n d , m o r e d e t a ile d w a r r a n t ) .
2 8 0
S e e , e . g . , B e lle v ille v . T o w n o f N o r t h b o r o , 3 7 5 F .3 d 2 5 , 3 2 ( 1 s t C ir .
2 0 0 4 ) ( AF e d e r a l c o n s t it u t io n a l la w d o e s n o t p r o s c r ib e th e u s e o f c iv ilia n s in
s e a r c h e s . @) ; H i l l , 3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 0 8 8 n .1 0 ( r e c o g n iz in g th a t e x p e r ts m a y b e
a d v is a b le to lim it s e a r c h ) ; U n it e d S t a t e s v . S c h w im m e r , 6 9 2 F . S u p p . 1 1 9 , 1 2 6 -2 7
( E . D . N . Y . 1 9 8 8 ) ( s u m m a r ily r e je c t in g c h a lle n g e t o u s e o f c o m p u t e r e x p e r t ) .
2 8 1
B e lle v ille , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 3 2 .
2 8 2
W a d e , 5 4 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 3 0 -3 1 (c o m p u te r e x p e r ts fr o m c o m p a n y
fr o m w h ic h c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t w a s s t o le n a s s is t e d in id e n t ify in g e q u ip m e n t ) ; a c -
c o r d B e lle v ille , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 3 2 .
2 8 3
S e e U n it e d S ta te s v . B a c h , 3 1 0 F .3 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 6 -6 8 (8 th C ir .
2 0 0 2 ) ( p r iv a t e I n t e r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r e m p lo y e e s s e a r c h e d s u s p e c t 's e m a i l ) , c e r t .
d e n ie d , 5 3 8 U .S . 9 9 3 (2 0 0 3 ).
3. Deleted Files
When a computer user Adeletes@ a file, the data that was

contained in that file may remain in the computer memory:
M o s t w o r d p r o c e s s in g p r o g r a m s u s e s o m e f o r m o f a
r e c y c le b in , in t o w h ic h d o c u m e n t s a r e t r a n s f e r r e d w h e n
d e le t e d . T h u s , a c o m p u t e r is a ls o lik e a w a s t e b a s k e t o f
d is c a r d e d m a t e r ia l. I n o r d e r t o a t t e m p t t o p e r m a n e n t ly
d e le t e s u c h d o c u m e n t s , t h e r e c y c le b in m u s t b e e m p t ie d .
H o w e v e r , e v e n e m p t y in g t h e r e c y c le b in m a y n o t a c t u a lly
d e le t e t h e d o c u m e n t o r file b e c a u s e t h e in f o r m a t io n m a y s t ill
r e m a in o n t h e c o m p u t e r 's h a r d d r iv e .
T h e in t e n t io n a l d e le t io n o f a file d o e s n o t p e r m a n e n t ly
e r a s e t h e file . I n s t e a d , t h e c o m p u t e r in t e r n a lly m a r k s t h e file
a s n o t n e e d e d , a n d c le a r s s p a c e f o r s t o r a g e o f o t h e r file s .
T h e e r a s u r e o f in f o r m a t io n o n ly o c c u r s w h e n t h e c o m p u t e r
o v e r w r it e s t h e file w it h a n o t h e r file . E v e n t h e n , f r a g m e n t s o f
in f o r m a t io n m a y b e r e t r ie v a b le i f t h e e n t ir e file is n o t o v e r -
w r it t e n . F u r t h e r m o r e , w o r d p r o c e s s in g p r o g r a m s m a y h a v e
s a v e d p o r t io n s o r v e r s io n s o f d o c u m e n t s r e g a r d le s s o f
w h e t h e r t h e u s e r in t e n t io n a lly s a v e s t h e fin a l v e r s io n .
T h u s , in g e n e r a l, a file o r d o c u m e n t m a y n o t b e r e m o v e d
f r o m t h e h a r d d r iv e o f a c o m p u t e r u n t il it is r e f o r m a t t e d .
H o w e v e r , e v e n t h e n , it m a y b e p o s s ib le t o p a r t ia lly r e c o v e r
d o c u m e n t s o r file s r e m o v e d f r o m a h a r d d r iv e , d e p e n d in g o n
h o w t h e d r iv e w a s r e f o r m a t t e d . F u r t h e r , t h e p o t e n t ia l fo r
d e le t e d m a t e r ia l t o b e s t o r e d o n a h a r d d r iv e , w it h o r
w it h o u t in t e n t io n a l s a v in g b y t h e u s e r , is n o t lim it e d t o w o r d
p r o c e s s in g d o c u m e n t s , b u t a p p lie s t o o t h e r p r o g r a m s a n d
f u n c t io n s o f a c o m p u t e r a s w e ll. 2 8 4
Because technicians can often recover much of that data using

electronic search technology, courts have confronted a variety of
2 8 4
G a ll, 3 0 P .3 d a t 1 6 1 ( M a r t in e z , J . , d is s e n t in g ) ( c it a t io n s o m it t e d ) .
S e e , e .g ., U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 ( r e je c t in g s c o p e a r g u m e n t a n d a s s e r t in g th a t
r e c o v e r y o f d e le t e d f i l e s n o d i f f e r e n t t h a n Ap a s t i n g t o g e t h e r s c r a p s o f a t o r n - u p r a n -
s o m n o t e @) .
issues regarding the admissibility of such Adeleted@ data. Some

courts have addressedBand rejectedBthe government claim that
the files have been abandoned.285 The analogy of deletion of a
file to putting one's trash out in the street is flawed, according
to one court, because in the latter situation, but not the former,
every passerby can search the trash.286
On the other hand, defendants have claimed that the recovery
of deleted files is outside the scope of a warrant;287 the assertion
is that a second warrant is required or the scope of the original
warrant has been exceeded because the Adeletion@ of the docu-
ments creates a new and legally different expectation of privacy
protected by the Amendment.288 Rejecting such a claim, one
court has reasoned that an Aattempt to secrete evidence of a
crime is not synonymous with a legally cognizable expectation
of privacy.@289 The court analogized the situation to a paper
tablet and a diary recorded in a private code, both of which may
be subjected to scientific analysis after seizure pursuant to a
warrant; the court concluded that no second warrant was
required Abefore subjecting legally seized physical evidence to
scientific testing and analysis to make it divulge its secrets.@290
V. CONCLUSION
Courts are increasingly confronting the problems associated

with adapting Fourth Amendment principles to modern
2 8 5
S e e , e .g ., U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 n .3 . C f . U n it e d S ta te s v .
A n g e v in e , 2 8 1 F .3 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( w h e n d e f e n d a n t d id n o t h a v e
a c c e s s to d a t a h e p r e v io u s ly a t t e m p t e d to d e le t e o n u n iv e r s it y o w n e d c o m p u t e r , h e
h a d n o r e a s o n a b le e x p e c t a t io n o f p r iv a c y in t h a t d a t a ) .
2 8 6
U p h a m , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 n .3 .
2 8 7
S e e , e .g ., id . a t 5 3 7 (r e c o v e r y o f d e le t e d file s n o d iffe r e n t t h a n
Ap a s t i n g t o g e t h e r s c r a p s o f a t o r n - u p r a n s o m n o t e @) .
2 8 8
C o m m o n w e a lt h v . C o p e n h e f e r , 5 8 7 A .2 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 5 6 (P a . 1 9 9 1 ).
2 8 9
Id .
2 9 0
Id .
technology.291 Supreme Court jurisprudence, developed to regu-

late traditional search and seizure practices, presents conceptu-
al problems when applied to the world of cyber-space and elec-
tronically stored evidence. Some authorities are reluctant to ac-
ceptBor outright rejectBanalogies to physical world searches and
seizures. This article concludes, however, that there is nothing
Aspecial@ in the nature of computer searches that differentiate
them in any principled way from other document and container
searches. Assuming the validity of the document/container
analogy, however, also requires recognition of what the
relevant container is, which has significance for application of
the plain view and private search doctrines. Traditional Fourth
Amendment principles can be translated to the search of
electronic evidence. Although one may dispute the correctness
of some of the Supreme Court's development of Fourth Amend-
ment principles, as I have elsewhere, there is nothing sui
generis where the target of the search or seizure is a computer
or other device that contains electronic evidence.
2 9 1
S e e g e n e r a lly S y m p o s iu m : T h e E ffe c t o f T e c h n o lo g y o n F o u r th
A m e n d m e n t A n a ly s is a n d In d iv id u a l R ig h t s , 7 2 M IS S . L . J . 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) .

The Fourth Amendment Aspects of Computer Searches and Seizures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fourth Amendment Aspects of Computer Searches and Seizures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILE:C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\MYBRIE~1\CLANCY Dec

12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ASPECTS OF COMPUTER

Computers Different From Other

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 195

This article is called a Aprimer@ because it outlines the

A primer is generally thought of as not espousing a point

II. THE NATURE OF COMPUTER SEARCHES:

There are two principal approaches to searches involving

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 197

physical evidence, including such items as wires, microchips,

In Andresen v. Maryland,1 the Supreme Court outlined the

Although authorizing a broad document search, the Court ob-

Several of the themes articulated by Andresen have been

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 199

B. Views Whether Computer Data Are Documents

1. Data are Forms of Records/Container Analogy

Many courts view data in computer storage as a form of a

Courts adopting this view have often analogized computers to

Following this view, computers have been said to be Areason-

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 201

equivalent of `written or printed material.'@11 This is despite the

the objects sought.15 For example, searches of computers for

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 203

2. Rejection of the Document Search and Container Analogy: A

Some authorities reject the container analogy and view

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 205

Other arguments that searches of computers are different

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 207

To restrict the scope of a search of a computer that contains

w a r r a n t b y ` o b s e r v in g file s typ e s a n d t it le s lis t e d in th e d ir e c t o r y , d o in g a k e y w o r d

3. Discussion of the Premises of the ASpecial Approach@

As this section explains, I believe the Aspecial approach@ is

a. Should File Names or Types Limit the Scope of a Search?

An essential premise of the Aspecial approach@ is that file name

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 209

In Carey, the principal case espousing this Aspecial approach,@

opened each file, he really did not know its contents.35 He

Putting aside the appellate court's disregard of its limited role

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 211

what a computer storage medium contains just by looking at it.

c a n s t ill le a v e th e e x a m in e r s flo u n d e r in g in a s e a o f s u p e r flu o u s d a t a @, i d . a t 2 3 0 ) ;

Similarly, in United States v. Gray,41 the court rejected the

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 213

These authorities support the conclusion that Carey's limi-

b. Do Technological Search Programs Make the File Cabinet

Another premise of authorities rejecting the file cabinet

search techniques have inherent strengths and weaknesses:@

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 215

This passage merely describes the current state of competition

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 217

mandate that advanced technological search engines be used? If

for according a special status to first amendment libertiesCthat

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 219

to means that might permit evidence to go undetected once it is

c. Does the Nature or Amount of Material Make Computers

A fundamental premise of the Aspecial approach,@ which

Luggage had high expectations of privacy.58 But other contain-

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 221

Based on this reasoning, it seems clear that the Supreme

d. Limitations Based on Search Execution

Based at least in part on the other premises of the Aspecial

2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 223

Indeed, in the computer context, some courts have recognized