United States v. Talon Wright
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17429
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police responded to a July 31, 2014 domestic dispute between Talon Wright and Leslie Hamilton; Hamilton called Wright a "pedophile."
- Investigator McNaught (child‑crimes specialist) interviewed Hamilton, who said Wright used his phone to visit "Jailbait" and mentioned a disturbing video on the home computer; she consented to a search.
- McNaught went to the apartment, where Hamilton (using her key) showed him a desktop in the living room she described as a "family computer" that she and her children used for movies, games, school, and work documents.
- McNaught conducted a forensic preview of the desktop (connected to his laptop) and discovered images of child pornography; he then seized the computer with Hamilton’s consent.
- Forensic analysis later revealed additional child‑pornography images and videos showing Wright engaged in sexual conduct with a minor.
- Wright moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless computer search, arguing Hamilton lacked authority to consent; the district court denied suppression and Wright reserved appeal after pleading guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hamilton had actual common authority to consent to a warrantless search of the desktop computer | Wright: Hamilton did not have authority over the computer; it belonged to Wright and she did not know its password | Govt: Hamilton was a joint user with regular, unrestricted access and control (family computer; children used it) | Held: Actual authority existed — Hamilton had mutual use, access, and control; consent valid |
| Whether alleged password on computer negated common authority | Wright: Hamilton’s ignorance of a password shows she lacked access to contents, like a locked container | Govt: No evidence computer was password‑protected; children knew any password; Wright took steps only to restrict phone, not computer | Held: Password issue did not defeat authority; forensic evidence showed no password and children’s use suggested access allowed |
| Whether Hamilton had apparent authority such that officer reasonably believed her consent was valid | Wright: (implied) officer should have known third‑party lacked authority if relationship ended / passworded device | Govt: Officer had facts at hand — family computer in common area, toys/clothes, Hamilton’s statements — supporting reasonable belief | Held: Apparent authority also supported consent; officer’s belief was reasonable |
| Burden of proof for third‑party consent and standard of review | Wright: challenges sufficiency of evidence supporting consent | Govt: bears preponderance to show authority; factual findings reviewed for clear error, legal conclusions de novo | Held: Government met its burden by preponderance; appellate court affirmed under review standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (third‑party common authority can validate consent to search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; warrant requirement baseline)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (apparent authority: officer need reasonable belief third party had consent authority)
- United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th Cir.) (computers treated like closed containers; password protection is significant for authority analysis)
- United States v. James, 571 F.3d 707 (7th Cir.) (government bears preponderance burden to prove third‑party consent; review standards)