Password protected files have more privacy, but when the password is shared with others, the other has apparent authority to consent to a search of the protected files. United States v. Cole, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57437 (D. Me. July 24, 2008):<\/p>\n
In the personal computer context, any limit on the authority of one user of a computer to consent to a search of another user’s files is likely to turn on the presence of password protection and\/or encryption of files. Password protected computers or files have been likened to private, locked compartments, so that where officers know that the person offering consent lacks the key, or password, they cannot reasonably conclude that the person in question has the authority to consent to a search of any “locked” areas. See, e.g., United States v. Andrus<\/em>, 483 F.3d 711, 713-14, 718-19 (10th Cir. 2007) (considering whether defendant’s father had authority to consent to a search of a computer, where the agents conducted a forensic search of the hard drive that overrode any password restriction on user access). Password protection is a factor in this case, but it does not weigh in favor of a finding that Presby, as someone with unfettered access to all files on the computer, did not have actual authority to consent to the search in question. Nor did the mere existence of password protection give rise to ambiguity as to whether Presby had authority to consent to a search of Cole’s files, where Presby was able to promptly enter the password to enable access to the files in question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Search warrant based on probable cause to believe the defendant received child porn did not prohibit the police from looking for child porn images beyond those defendant actually received. United States v. Patt, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57318 (W.D. N.Y. July 24, 2008):<\/p>\n
An argument similar to that raised by Patt was recently considered and rejected by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Grimmett<\/em>, 439 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2006). In Grimmett, a confidential informant had observed a video containing child pornography on the defendant’s computer. A search warrant then issued for the defendant’s entire residence, specifically referencing computer hardware and software. During the subsequent search, law enforcement agents made a copy of the defendant’s computer hard drive for forensic analysis and seized videotapes and other non-computer related property. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the search should have been restricted to the child pornography contained on his computer. The Tenth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument, finding that the warrant was not overbroad because it had properly required a nexus between the items to be seized and child pornography. United States v. Grimmett<\/em>, 439 F.3d at 1271.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading