D.Ore.: No REP in a govt computer and email where there were banner warnings at every sign in

Defendant’s government work emails were searched without a warrant, and it’s clear, based on warnings on the computer at every sign in and regular training, that he was well aware everything on the computer has no reasonable expectation of privacy. He may have had a subjective expectation, but there wasn’t any objective reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Caputo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192511 (D. Ore. Nov. 6, 2019):

In this case, any expectation of privacy in Defendant’s work email was objectively unreasonable under the military’s computer-use policies in effect at his workplace. AR 25-2 specified that Defendant had “no expectation of privacy while using [information systems] or accessing Army resources.” ECF 48-2. Additionally, both AR 25-2 and the Oregon National Guard’s acceptable use policy stated that communications using Defendant’s work computer were routinely monitored for law enforcement purposes. Id.; ECF 48-1 at 4. Unlike Heckenkamp, in which the network policy affirmed a “basic principle” of privacy, see 482 F.3d at 1147, the terms in effect here made it abundantly clear that Defendant’s communications over his work computer system were not private.

Furthermore, Defendant received routine reminders that these policies were in place. He was required to sign the Oregon National Guard’s policy before receiving computer access at work and recertified his understanding of its conditions each year. ECF 48 at 4-5. He also participated in the Defense Department’s annual training, the “Cyber Awareness Challenge,” which “advised users that there was no expectation of privacy in the use of [the Department’s] systems.” Id. at 5. Most importantly, he received notice of the policies via the warning banner displayed each time he accessed his work computer. Id. at 3. The Ninth Circuit has held that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists where this kind of warning banner provides “ample reason to be aware that [a defendant’s] stored files and internet usage were subject to monitoring by his employer and disclosure to law enforcement personnel, and that by using the computer he was deemed to have consented to such monitoring and disclosure.” Greiner, 235 F. App’x at 542. Thus, any expectation of privacy in Defendant’s work email was objectively unreasonable here.