{"id":9312,"date":"2013-08-21T07:27:06","date_gmt":"2013-08-21T07:27:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-08-21T07:27:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9312","title":{"rendered":"TN: Giving computer to a computer tech for virus removal was waiver of REP"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant took his computer to Staples for a computer tech to remove viruses and spyware, giving the tech the password to the computer. The computer tech found child pornography in a folder called “PVT,” and he called the police who saw the files and seized the computer. The court finds that the defendant waived his reasonable expectation of privacy in the computer by his actions. State v. Dale<\/a>, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 704 (August 19, 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The application of the principles of search and seizure law lead us to conclude that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress. To begin, we are not persuaded that appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer once he gave the computer to Staples under the circumstances previously listed. A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when (1) the individual has “an actual, subjective expectation of privacy,” and (2) “society is willing to view the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy as reasonable and justifiable under the circumstances.” State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486, 494 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)). In this case, appellant’s conduct in requesting the work and giving Staples his computer’s password suggests that he did not have a subjective expectation of privacy; however, he arguably attempted to maintain an expectation of privacy by labeling a folder, “PVT.” Nevertheless, it has long been recognized that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he or she voluntarily turns over information to third parties. Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-44. Therefore, we conclude that under these circumstances, society would not be willing to recognize appellant’s expectation of privacy as reasonable and justifiable.<\/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-9312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}