N.D.Ga.: Jones doesn’t create a REP in a computer with peer to peer software that lets the police in

“Several courts have rejected the application of Jones to the investigation of file sharing programs,” United States v. Brashear, Criminal No. 4:11-CR-0062, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163865, 2013 WL 6065326, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2013) (citations omitted), and the Court finds the reasoning of these cases persuasive. The government did not use a tracking device, such as at issue in Jones; instead, it merely obtained information publicly available on shared files via a software program that connected with defendant’s computer on which defendant had installed a file-sharing program.” United States v. Dennis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65694 (N.D. Ga. April 7, 2014).*

There was reasonable suspicion defendant and a suspected prostitute were doing it then there was a furtive movement: “(1) Anderson was in a high crime area where prostitution and other crimes occurred; (2) Anderson had been parked in a lane of travel with a female passenger for no apparent reason; (3) Anderson and his female passenger did not know each other’s names; (4) Anderson’s fly was open; and (5) Anderson made a hand move that could have involved trying to hide something in the back seat immediately upon seeing a police vehicle. These factors collectively provided Corporal Porter with at least reasonable suspicion that prostitution may have been occurring. … While there may have been innocent explanations for all of these factors, this does not negate the existence of reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Anderson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9004 (5th Cir. May 14, 2014).*

Defendant consented to the search after a conversation with the police. United States v. Lee, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66261 (E.D. Mo. April 22, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.