E.D.Mo.: Officer’s use of e-mails in Internet sting case does not state a violation of the Fourth Amendment or any statute

Defendant’s broadranging attack on seizure of e-mails that he sent was [utterly frivolous and] rejected. He assumed the risk that the recipient would keep and make use of them. And, violation of the Yahoo service agreement is hardly a ground to suppress. United States v. Grady, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124582 (E.D. Mo. December 18, 2009):

Further, the e-mail communications were not “seized” by the agents within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, nor did Defendant have any legitimate expectation of privacy in the communications. Defendant certainly cannot assert any basis to suppress the e-mails that were created and sent by the undercover officers, and thereafter stored on their own computer. The remaining e-mails were sent by Defendant to the address provided, and the undercover officers simply received and opened them at the address to which Defendant directed them. See Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that e-mail senders “would lose a legitimate expectation of privacy in an e-mail that had already reached its recipient; at this moment, the e-mailer would be analogous to a letter-writer, whose expectation of privacy ordinarily terminates upon delivery of the letter”) (citations omitted); see also Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., No. 07-1029, 2007 WL 4394447, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2007) (holding that plaintiff had no claim under the Wiretap Act against the defendant, who was not the intended recipient of the e-mail communication, where the communication was nonetheless sent to the defendant).

Moreover, having responded to an anonymous listing, Defendant assumed the risk that the entity with whom he chose to correspond was not an actual purveyor of underage prostitutes. That the undercover agent concealed his identity and stated that he was not law enforcement does not change this result. See Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 437-39 (1963) (holding that recorded conversation with agent who gained entry to the defendant’s office by misrepresenting and falsifying the purpose of his mission, was not subject to suppression); see also Sega Enters. Ltd v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp 923, 930 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (recognizing that access to a public bulletin board through use of a pseudonym does not constitute an unauthorized access under the SCA, as such forums “are normally accessed by use of an alias or pseudonym”).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.