D.Minn.: Computer could be seized and searched as a condition of supervised release

Defendant was indicted and convicted in federal court in Georgia, but he was on bond pending appeal in Minnesota. As a condition of his supervised release, his computers were subject to inspection. Based on certain admissions, USPO seized his computer and shipped it to Georgia for inspection. The conditions of release permitted the seizure and search of his computer elsewhere. United States v. McCoy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162452 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168838 (D.Minn. Dec. 17, 2015):

The terms of supervised release thus authorized the probation officers to conduct random inspections of Defendant’s Internet and email usage to ensure that he was not engaged in unlawful activity which, in his case, would obviously be focused on activity related to child pornography. While the Defendant concedes that the Probation Officers could randomly inspect his computers to insure that he was complying with the conditions of release, he contends that the Probation Officers should have searched his computers where he preferred (his home), and under the conditions that he preferred (on-site triage). However, there were no such limitations in the supervised release order. On-site review and inspection of the Defendant’s computers was not necessary, and indeed it was not feasible in this case. There were a large volume of hard drives present, and the Probation Officers were justifiably concerned about the Defendant’s ability to hide or erase child pornography.

The Defendant told Officer Martinetto that he had programmed computers in many different computer languages and he had built two of the computers in his house. One of the computers was a tower with five hard drives – one running Windows, one running DOS, and three in a RAID system, which is commonly used when a computer is utilized as a server, not for typical personal use. The Probation Officers were obviously dealing with a person with a very high degree of sophistication in computer use. Indeed, the Defendant admitted to having used a program to wipe his computers of pornography, so there was a reasonable expectation that something much more than a cursory on-site review of online historical activity would be required.