{"id":2172,"date":"2008-07-29T06:30:07","date_gmt":"2008-06-21T13:38:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-21T13:38:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2172","title":{"rendered":"While private search occurred, officer exceeded scope of private search by encouraging further searching"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s boyfriend’s search of computer disks was a private search, but the police expanded the private search by asking him to keep looking. People v. Wilkinson<\/a>, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1554, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501 (3d Dist. 2008):<\/p>\n

Although we find no California case on point, federal case law has held that police officers exceed the scope of a private search when they fail to confine their examination of the contents of computer discs to the discs the private searcher examined. (U.S. v. Runyan <\/em>(5th Cir. 2001) 275 F.3d 449; see generally, Annot., Validity of Search or Seizure of Computer, Computer Disk, or Computer Peripheral Equipment <\/em>(2000) 84 A.L.R.5th 1; Kerr, Searches and Seizures in a Digital World <\/em>(2005) 119 Harv. L.Rev. 531.)<\/p>\n

Though not cited by the parties and not binding on us, Runyan provides a thoughtful and persuasive analysis of the issues we confront in this case. There, a defendant in a child pornography case argued the police violated the Fourth Amendment by a warrantless examination of tangible materials, including computer discs, taken from his property by his wife (from whom he was separated). (U.S. v. Runyan<\/em>, supra, 275 F.3d at pp. 452\u2013453, 456.) The police looked at the contents of a greater number of discs than the wife did during her private search. (Id.<\/em> at p. 460.) The appellate court accepted the parties’ stipulation that the computer discs were closed containers. (Id.<\/em> at p. 458.) The court recognized that a police viewing of items following a search by a private citizen does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment as long as the view is confined to the scope and product of the initial private search. (Id.<\/em> at pp. 458\u2013459.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Under CAFRA, successful claimant could recover attorneys fees in successfully defending the criminal case and the forfeiture case. Claimant had to be aggressive to keep its business open. United States v. Certain Real Property, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46710 (N.D. Ala. May 29, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}