People v. Michael E.
230 Cal. App. 4th 261
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Evans’ computer was taken to a repair shop where a private search by the technician occurred.
- The technician viewed photos of underage-appearing individuals and reported them to police while viewing the computer.
- Police directed the technician to open video files found on a USB flash drive, which they then opened and viewed at the police station.
- The next day Evans’ computer was seized by police; no warrant had yet been obtained for a broader search.
- The trial court held that the private search was within scope and the subsequent police viewing of the videos was permissible, finding no Fourth Amendment violation.
- Evans moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied the motion, and the matter was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the police search exceeded the private search scope | Evans argues the private search did not reveal illicit contents, so viewing the videos exceeded scope. | Evans contends Statham’s private search framed the permissible scope; police must not exceed it. | Yes; the police exceeded the private search scope and suppression is required. |
| Whether the hard drive constitutes a closed container for Fourth Amendment purposes | Evans contends the hard drive is a container whose contents cannot be revealed without a warrant. | Evans argues the private search had already frustrated privacy expectations, so no new search occurred. | No; the hard drive was not properly treated as a closed container; the private search did not justify the subsequent government search. |
| Whether the private search by Statham preserved Evans’ reasonable expectation of privacy in the video files | Statham’s discovery did not establish probable cause or reveal illicit content; police searches violated privacy. | Evans’ expectation of privacy was diminished when he entrusted the computer to a third party. | Evans’ privacy expectation was not sufficiently frustrated by the private search to permit the police search without a warrant. |
| Whether Runyan and Wilkinson control the outcome | POLICE may rely on private search scope to avoid Fourth Amendment violation. | Runyan/Wilkinson are distinguishable; here the private search did not reveal the illicit contents. | They do not sustain the trial court’s conclusion; the government did violate the Fourth Amendment. |
| Disposition relative to suppression | Evidence obtained should be admissible because it followed a private search. | Suppression is required because the search exceeded the private search scope. | The judgment is reversed and the motion to suppress should be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Runyan v. United States, 275 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (police exceed private search when opening containers not examined by private searchers)
- Wilkinson v. People, 163 Cal.App.4th 1554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (private search analysis; subsequent viewing may exceed private scope)
- Jacobsen v. United States, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (test for private search scope controlling governmental search)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones as minicomputers; warrants required for searches incident to arrest)
- United States v. Kinney, 953 F.2d 863 (4th Cir. 1992) (police exceed private search when opening unseen container)
- Simpson v. United States, 904 F.2d 610 (11th Cir. 1990) (private search context; government viewing more thoroughly may exceed scope)