Decision here.
Benoit lived with his girlfriend (DeGraffenreid) and one of her relatives (Kidd). While he was not home, his girlfriend used his computer to pay bills. As she was doing so, she found child porn videos and called the police.
When the officer arrived, DeGraffenreid and Kidd invited him in. Kidd (the more tech-savvy of the two) offered to show him the video, and he said "okay." He watched ten seconds of a video depicting a minor female having sex with an adult male, then called a detective. The detective told him to seize the computer and obtain witness statements from DeGraffenreid and Kidd. The computer was seized, and after obtaining a search warrant the cops found 320 child porn images and 80 child porn videos.
A few days later, Benoit called the police to ask to meet about this case. He met with them at a truck stop (I'm guessing he was no longer welcome at home...) and admitted to possessing child porn. Criminal charges followed, and a jury convicted Benoit of possessing and receiving child porn. Benoit appealed.
The Tenth circuit held that the federal crime of possessing child porn is a lesser included offense for receiving child porn. So the lower court will have to pick one of the convictions to stand and dismiss the other. There was also a restitution issue that needed a little work. But we're here for the fourth amendment stuff.
Benoit argued that the officer's search and subsequent seizure of his computer was a violation of the fourth amendment. The court began by explaining third party consent: essentially, a person has actual authority to consent to a search if they have "mutual use of the property by virtue of joint access" or "control for most purposes." A person has apparent authority to consent if the facts available to the officer would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that they had actual authority (even if they actually don't). Consent by a person with actual or apparent authority to consent is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement.
After explaining that, the court went on to address private searches. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches by the government, but not from unreasonable searches by private citizens. But if the government "coerces, dominates, or directs the actions" of the private citizen, then the search is really a government action after all (and therefore governed by the Fourth Amendment).
In this case, DeGraffenreid and Kidd were the ones who did all of the warrantless searching. DeGraffenreid found child porn on the computer when she was using it on her own. Kidd repeated this search when the officer arrived. The officer said "okay," when she asked if she could show him the video, but this isn't enough to say that he directed the search. All of these actions were undertaken by DeGraffenreid and Kidd on their own initiative, and the officer was just a witness to the search. So the search was not a government action, and the court doesn't have to decide whether it was reasonable or not; the fourth amendment does not apply to private searches.
On to the seizure of the computer: in order to seize evidence under the plain view doctrine, three elements have to be met. 1- The officer must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place where the evidence could be viewed. 2- The item must be in plain sight, and it's incriminating nature must be immediately appparent. 3- The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object (in other words, if you're on the street and you see something incriminating through the window of a house, that doesn't justify warrantless entry to go get it).
In this case, DeGraffenreid and Kidd both had actual authority to consent to the officer's entry, and they had invited him in. The child porn was obviously child porn, and the officer could see that. And since he was already in the house, he had lawful access to the computer. The seizure of the computer was proper.
As the evidence was properly admitted, Benoit's conviction was affirmed (one of them, anyway).
No comments:
Post a Comment