{"id":6647,"date":"2012-05-01T10:00:49","date_gmt":"2012-02-07T09:05:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-02-07T09:05:52","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6647","title":{"rendered":"PA: Using somebody else&#8217;s email account doesn&#8217;t give standing to challenge SW for email"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This child pornography investigation involved search warrants for AOL emails, a subpoena for subscriber information, then a search warrant for the offending computer as it is supposed to be done. The only issue was whether the first search warrant for the emails was stale where the information was six months old. As an aside, the court notes that defendant probably did not have standing because the account was not in his name, and the issue is saved for another day. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/OpPosting\/Superior\/out\/a33030_11.pdf\">Commonwealth v. Hoppert<\/a>, 2012 PA Super 21, 39 A.3d 358 (2012), n.3:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We further note that while neither party nor the trial court raised the issue, we question whether Appellant had an expectation of privacy in the AOL records that were the subject of the first search warrant. \u201c[A]s a preliminary matter, [a defendant] must show that he had a privacy interest in the area searched.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1224289331248475407&amp;q=874+A.2d+108&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Commonwealth v. Jones<\/a>, 874 A.2d 108, 117 (Pa. Super. 2005). Here, the AOL account was registered to Sallie Hoppert, not Appellant.<\/p>\n<p>Although it does not appear that Pennsylvania courts have addressed the expectation of privacy in computer user accounts, we note that another panel of this Court recently examined the issue in relation to cellular phone records in <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14840436751104607736&amp;q=10+A.3d+1268&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Commonwealth v. Benson<\/a>, 10 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2010). In Benson, the defendant sought to suppress records related to a cellular phone owned by his then-girlfriend, on a cell phone primarily used by him. We ultimately concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[W]hile Appellant had use of the telephone, the bills in question were not his telephone bills. &#8230;Appellant had no legal right to request or control access to the information from the telephone company because he was not the owner of the telephone. He had no legitimate expectation of privacy in them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Id. at 1273-1274 (emphasis in original). Moreover, our decision in Benson relied upon a 2008 Washington Court of Appeals case wherein that court held that \u201ca defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in telephone bills in the name of defendant\u2019s wife.\u201d Id. at 1273 (emphasis added).<\/p>\n<p>However, because the precise issue was not squarely before the trial court, we do not reach a decision as to whether Appellant had an expectation of privacy in the AOL records held in his wife\u2019s name. We merely note this threshold requirement for future guidance for both bench and bar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6647\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-6647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6647","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=6647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6647\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}