S.D.N.Y.: Driver’s apparent authority to consent to search of car did not extend to a digital camera that belonged to another; Riley applies to digital camera

The woman driving defendant’s car with the keys in hand had apparent authority to consent to its search. That consent, however, did not extend to a digital camera in the car. “The consent the officers received to search the car did not extend to the camera’s contents. ‘Consent to search an area is distinguishable from consent to search an object or closed container located within that area.’ Turner, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 310. The Court must consider ‘the defendant’s expectation of privacy in the object apart from his expectation of privacy in the [area being searched].’ U.S. v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44, 50 (2d Cir. 2002).” Riley essentially applies to searches of all digital media. United States v. Whiteside, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84369 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2015).

A pre-enforcement challenge to whether parole conditions violate the state constitution’s privacy provision isn’t ripe. “Further factual development is needed, and Cates does not face a significant risk of hardship by our declining to review the merits in the absence of developed facts.” State v. Cates, 2015 Wash. LEXIS 697 (July 2, 2015).