CA3: Owning a hard drive in somebody else’s computer assumes the risk of disclosure

Defendant who installed a hard drive in another person’s computer, and claimed ownership of the hard drive [a “unique issue”] assumes the risk of disclosure by the owner of the computer. Also, diverging with the Ninth Circuit, Randolph only applies to real property, not personalty (there is a detailed anaylsis of this issue). United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2010):

Because Randolph does not apply to personal effects, King’s suppression argument necessarily fails. A computer is a personal effect, see, e.g, Andrus, 483 F.3d at 718-20 (analogizing a computer to a container). Therefore, we apply the Matlock rule and ask whether King relinquished his privacy in the hard drive with respect to Larkin. Here, King placed his hard drive inside the computer Larkin owned and that the two of them shared, without any password protection. As a result, he assumed the risk that Larkin would consent to its seizure. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in holding that the seizure of Larkin’s computer did not violate the Fourth Amendment and evidence derived therefrom was admissible against King.

CI’s information showed probable cause for the search of defendant’s car. United States v. Dewar, 375 Fed. Appx. 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

Courthouse screening did not deny the defendant his right to a public trial. Screening is necessary for safety. State v. O’Connor, 155 Wn. App. 282, 229 P.3d 880 (2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.