{"id":5216,"date":"2011-08-08T08:04:47","date_gmt":"2011-02-21T06:04:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-21T06:04:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5216","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Officer did not exceed consent to search computer by looking in a different game program"},"content":{"rendered":"

The search of defendant\u2019s computer did not exceed the consent. The mouse wasn\u2019t working properly, and the officer had to scroll through programs and clicked on a game program and stumbled upon child pornography. The officer did not even click on programs that had more suggestive names. United States v. Whaley<\/a>, 415 Fed. Appx. 129 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)*:<\/p>\n

In this case, Whaley permitted Schoenfeld to use his computer, but only for the limited purpose of viewing the flight simulator program. We discern no clear error in the magistrate\u2019s finding that Schoenfeld was, in fact, searching for the flight simulator when he opened the \u201cauto racing 13\u201d icon. Because the laptop\u2019s mouse pad was not working, Schoenfeld had to scroll through the icons one by one. Therefore, it is plausible that he did not notice the \u201cMicrosoft Flight Si\u201d icon at the time. If Schoenfeld\u2019s interest in the flight simulator was actually a pretext for conducting a search for contraband, he likely would not have clicked on the \u201cauto racing 13\u201d icon because the file name was not suggestive of child pornography or other illegal materials. And, in fact, there were other icons on the computer with more suggestive titles that Sgt. Schoenfeld did not click on. These included \u201cbeautiful kiss,\u201d \u201cgirls gone wild9best o…,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n

The key question in this case is whether an officer exceeds the scope of an individual\u2019s consent to search for a particular computer file when the officer opens another file in the reasonable, though mistaken belief, that it is the file that was the subject of the individual\u2019s consent. Although we do not have any published opinions directly on point, other Circuits have decided cases involving similar facts. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-5216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5216","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=5216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}