USPS employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a work computer where he was warned about a lack of privacy in the computer by a screen banner. United States v. Mosby, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56583 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2008):<\/p>\n
Similar to Simons<\/em>, the warning banner at issue here clearly informs the employee that he has no expectation of privacy and states that the computer is monitored and may be intercepted for official use, including criminal prosecution. Moreover, Mosby had to acknowledge and agree to the policy every time he used the computer. Thus, in light of the detailed warning banner and Mosby acknowledging the warning every time he logged onto the computer, the Court finds that Mosby had no legitimate, objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his work computer. As such, it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the search was reasonable. See Simons<\/em>, 206 F.3d 392 at 398; see also Leventhal<\/em>, 266 F.3d at 73 (“Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, a workplace search by a public employer will not violate the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the search’s nature and scope.”). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Plea agreement reserved right to appeal only one search issue, not both. [The unpreserved one would have been decided on consent, anyway.] There was sufficient nexus between defendant’s actions, his prior record as a convicted child molester, his digital camera, and the statement from young boys that he had photographed them nude to get a search warrant for his house. It was reasonable to infer that more would be in the house. United States v. Paton<\/a>, 535 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading