United States v. Sawyer, 786 F. Supp. 2d 1352

Defendant Brian Sawyer is charged with receipt, distribution, and possession of child pornography based on evidence seized from his computer during a March 4, 2011 search warrant.
The warrant stemmed from information obtained via Sawyer’s use of a closed peer-to-peer network, GigaTribe, where files are shared only with pre-approved friends.
Sawyer’s GigaTribe username was 'happyb'; he became online friends with user 'SB,' enabling access to each other’s shared folders and files.
Agent Couch logged into the SB account, viewed Sawyer’s shared files, downloaded 28 images of child pornography, and engaged in a private chat with Sawyer during the download.
IP address for Sawyer’s connection was identified, Time Warner Cable provided a physical address, and a warrant for Sawyer’s home was executed; Sawyer was interviewed for hours during the search.
Sawyer moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the SB login, arguing Fourth Amendment violations; the government opposed the suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sawyer had a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the shared GigaTribe files	Government argues no reasonable expectation of privacy in shared files on a closed network.	Sawyer contends there was some privacy interest in his shared files.	Sawyer had no reasonable expectation of privacy; the court denies suppression on this basis.
Whether Sawyer consent to the February 22 download was valid	Government contends Sawyer directly consented to the SB download, even if by misrepresentation.	Sawyer argues the consent was involuntary or invalid due to deceptive tactics.	Consent valid; undercover access did not render consent involuntary.
Whether the SB account owner’s third-party consent was valid	Government argues SB owner had authority to permit access to shared folders.	Sawyer contends third-party consent may be invalid if it exceeded access or authority.	SB owner’s consent valid; third-party consent covers the shared files.
Whether evidence obtained via this search is admissible as fruit of the poisonous tree	Government asserts no Fourth Amendment violation occurred to trigger suppression.	Sawyer asserts suppression should apply to all resulting evidence.	No suppression; search and subsequent evidence are admissible.

United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (no reasonable privacy interest in publicly shared files)
United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (no reasonable privacy interest in open file sharing)
United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (privacy expectations in shared files over P2P networks reduced)
United States v. Meriwether, 917 F.2d 955 (6th Cir. 1990) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in information sent to a pager)
United States v. Pollard, 215 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2000) (undercover entry with misrepresentation allowed to obtain consent)
United States v. Lord, 230 Fed. Appx. 511 (6th Cir. 2007) (consent obtained through deception valid when voluntary)