Putting personal computer on a network waives reasonable expectation of privacy when it is accessed through the network

By defendant networking his personal computer into a city computer system for purpose of file sharing, he lost any subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in the computer when it was networked. United States v. Barrows, 481 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007):

Mr. Barrows claims that he invited no one to use his computer and therefore expected its contents to remain private. Yet he surely contemplated at least some third-party access: he knowingly networked his machine to the city computer for the express purpose of sharing files. And though the record does not reflect whether an employee operating the city computer could access all of Mr. Barrows’s files or only a few, the fact remains that Mr. Barrows knew the contents of his machine were not wholly private. He also knew when he chose to relocate his computer to city hall that he would be working in a public area. City employees and members of the general public passed in and out all day. The chances a passerby might spy snatches of personal material over his shoulder, or sit down to use his computer having honestly mistaken it for a city one, were appreciable.

Even if Mr. Barrows did possess a subjective expectation of privacy, his failure to take affirmative measures to limit other employees’ access makes that expectation unreasonable. Angevine, 281 F.3d at 1135; see O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 718 (1987) (“[S]ome government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable.”). Those who bring personal material into public spaces, making no effort to shield that material from public view, cannot reasonably expect their personal materials to remain private. Home owners who place personal effects in their driveways cannot reasonably anticipate that those items will go unobserved. United States v. Long, 176 F.3d 1304, 1308-09 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 41 (1988)). Apartment tenants who move personal items into a common hallway cannot reasonably believe those items will be left uninspected. See United States v. Hawkins, 139 F.3d 29, 32 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding that a tenant lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building); accord United States v. Nohara, 3 F.3d 1239, 1242 (9th Cir. 1993), United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248, 1252 (3d Cir. 1992), United States v. DeWeese, 632 F.2d 1267, 1270 (5th Cir. 1980).

Mr. Barrows voluntarily moved his personal computer into a public space and took no measures to protect its contents from public inspection. Consequently, he did not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy and Officer McQuown’s search worked no Fourth Amendment violation.

An arrest warrant does not justify detaining others who live there under Summers. Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2007):

Because Freeman was at her own home when she was detained, and because the deputies had no right to search Freeman’s home based on their arrest warrant for Kevin, the detention cannot be justified under Summers.

Seeing a shotgun in a car justified a Long search for the gun and the person of the defendant. Reasonable suspicion was otherwise shown. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007).*

The government keeping records that were seized too long was a Fourth Amendment issue, not a due process issue, so the due process claim is dismissed. Hansen v. Schubert, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24094 (E.D. Cal. April 2, 2007):

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 due process claim arises out of the allegation that defendants’ deliberate refusal to return the seized items within a reasonable period of time resulted in the destruction of plaintiffs’ business without due process of law. (Pls.’ 2d. Am. Compl. P 29). The unreasonable retention of seized property is the type of government conduct for which the Fourth Amendment provides explicit limitations. See United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591, 597 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that the “Government’s unnecessary delay in returning the master volumes appears to be unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional manner of executing the warrant”); see also Fuller v. Vines, 36 F.3d 65, 68 (9th Cir. 1994), reversed on other grounds by 117 F.3d 1425 (1997) (“A seizure of property occurs, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”) (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has affirmatively held that where the Fourth Amendment is the source of limitations on the type of conduct challenged by a plaintiff’s claims, that Amendment, rather than the more general substantive due process protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, must govern the plaintiff’s claim. Albright, 520 U.S. at 273; Graham, 490 U.S. at 395; see Armendariz, 75 F.3d at 1321. As such, because the conduct plaintiffs allege is the type of government action that the Fourth Amendment regulates, their substantive due process claim is precluded. Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim is GRANTED.