State v. Cardwell, 824 S.E.2d 451

Petitioner Sarah Cardwell gave her laptop to technician David Marsh for repair; while Marsh was working at home, Chief Ron Douglas saw a still image on the laptop screen of a naked male child wearing a pink bra.
Chief Douglas asked Marsh to back up files and play the video; Marsh and Douglas watched about a minute showing Cardwell's children and her then-boyfriend naked; Marsh identified Cardwell as the person behind the camera by her voice.
Marsh copied the video to a disc at Douglas's request; Investigator Phillip Hanna (Georgetown Cty.) later took possession of the disc and laptop and obtained a search warrant.
A grand jury indicted Cardwell on two counts of unlawful conduct toward a child and two counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Cardwell moved to suppress the video evidence.
Trial court denied suppression (concluding Cardwell exposed files by giving the laptop to Marsh); Court of Appeals affirmed based on plain view and inevitable discovery grounds, though it rejected the notion Cardwell surrendered a general expectation of privacy by giving the laptop for repair.
Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed as modified: plain view applied (image of young boy in bra made incriminating nature immediately apparent) and inevitable discovery supported admissibility (statutory duty of technicians to report child sexual images).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cardwell had a reasonable expectation of privacy in files on laptop	Cardwell argued she retained a reasonable privacy expectation when giving laptop to a repair tech	State argued image was in plain view to Chief Douglas and thus no warrant was required; also inevitable discovery	Court held plain view applies and inevitable discovery independently supports admissibility
Whether viewing and copying the video required a warrant	Cardwell: opening/viewing video without warrant violated Fourth Amendment	State: still image made incriminating nature immediately apparent, allowing viewing under plain view	Court: viewing/copying did not require warrant under plain view doctrine
Whether allowing a technician access to data constitutes exposing data to the public	Cardwell: providing tech access for repair does not equate to public exposure of data	State: argued law enforcement lawfully viewed the image that was in plain view; technician had duty to report	Court: rejected notion that repair access equals public exposure but found plain view/inevitable discovery controlled
Whether evidence would have been discovered lawfully anyway	Cardwell: evidence obtained unlawfully so suppression required	State: statutory reporting duty of techs meant law enforcement would have been notified and obtained a warrant	Court: inevitable discovery applies; Marsh was required to report such images, so evidence would likely have been discovered lawfully

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (plain view doctrine rationale)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (definition of search and seizure principles)
State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436 (plain view test in South Carolina)
State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82 (appellate standard and discussion of admissibility/inevitable discovery)
State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416 (Ct. App. decision affirmed as modified by this Court)