ben coleman for mr hacking camp but i'd like to do is start off with the reasonable expectation of privacy issue and then move on to the merits of the searches and cells last week this court decided a case called united states versus eagler and i submitted a rule twenty ha a letter i just don't know whether it's made its way to the court yet we're familiar with the case ok in any event ziegler is very similar to the cases that the government cites ziegler involves an employee who was using an employer computer at his office and the employer had informed the employees that they would be monitoring their computer usage and inaccuracies of this court found that while the defendant had a subjective expectation  computer he did not have an objective expectation of privacy that's our position that the circumstances of this case and by the way as you are i think went out of its way to say it was really a very fact specific case that based on those facts this court found no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case we have a dramatically different situation we have the defendant who owns the computer it's his own computer it's in the privacy of his own dormitory room and i think the one of the old that's  one area where there is a dispute is whether the university had policies that governed or allowed access to his computer the government has pointed to two policies which the district courts below excepted  as indicating that monitoring of computer usage was allowed it's our position that if you look at the point language of those policies it is clear that they do not apply to a student's individually owned computer used in his dormitory room the first policy is what i've called the faculty policy it is clear on its very language that the policy only applies to university own computers used by the faculty in staff at their offices or workstations let's assume for argument who says that he did have a reasonable expectation of privacy what is wrong with the universe to do ok that there now is the merits of the searches in this case the university computer investigator who determine whether it was one seventeen or one twenty now i'm talking about when he actually went into the computer itself and in the dorm room while he remotely is first searches he remotely accessed the computer that he download and he did not download anything he went through the computer searched the various files determine that the computer belonged to mr hacking camp and also looked in found what he believed was evidence of hacking activity on the computer so he actually remotely access mr hacking champ's computer snooped around found the information that he was looking for and then determine ok i think i can champ's the guy that's what he did it wasn't i'm not talking about just reviewing the logs of the activity of the one seventeen versus want twenty i'm talking about what he did is he actually went into the computer itself and looked through the files of the computer it's our position that in order to do that he either needed a warrant or one of the traditional exceptions to the warrant requirement had to apply below the government did not argue edges in circumstances or emergency doctrine they argued special needs it's our position that this special needs doctrine is just not a political in this type of case special needs usually applies where it's sort of a program matic search where for example all employees are being tested for drugs or all with the university official and discover this anyway and they went to the dorm room your client authorized them to look in the computer right well it's our position that the measure consent to search was tainted by both the remote search and the illegal entry into the dormitory so that's why we believe that the case needs to be sent back for a fruit of the poisonous tree analysis it's our position that because there were forty member violations preceding the alleged consent that consent was tainted and so your argument using their own system to do that constitutes a search it constitutes a search if they access the individual's computer and look through the various files on the computer if the defendant has a reasonable expectation of position that and the only there was clearly was no warrant that's undisputed the question is whether when he conducted the search whether either it was justified under the special needs exigent circumstances or emergency doctrines and it's our position that none of those three now so what describe specifically what he did remotely that you object to and it was only because he had already found the computer he already had already ascertained not accessing the computer but looking just at the university computer that that this was likely the computer that was causing the responsible for the hacking right you actually had what he had discovered is that he believed that he had he didn't know whether the one seven hundred s was responsible for the hacking or not but he knew that somebody was accessing that one seventeen address from the mail server and he didn't know whose computer one seventeen was he just knew that the computer that he thought maybe somehow be involved either it was being hacked or it was doing the hacking was located at one seventeen but he did not know whose computer it was and he did not know how it was involved at all and what he did is by accessing the computer by remotely searching the computer he was able to that the computer was mr hacking camp's computer and he was able to determine that he thought he saw hacking tools or hacking files on that computer so we're not challenging his searching of the logs but we are challenging when he actually went int itself which was without a warrant was also an invalid and so both of these invalid searches tainted the subsequent consent his special needs are human is that i'm working for the university and we've got a special to protect the university mail system from hacking i gather that's that's the special needs are you making or making and then i'm going into this computer basically as a means of protecting then the universities now i'm law enforcement interest right that's her claim and it's our position that for a variety of reasons special needs doesn't apply the first being that special needs can only they were investigating this case for days and in fact the all met the computer investigator the local police and the f b i all had a conference at three pm on december eighth and determined that well we'll just wait and sit tight until the next day and then we'll go interview mr hacking camp the next day to figure out what's going on and then seven hours later the computer vascular decided to hack into mr hacking camp's computer so there there was no reason why  defense computer and the entry by mr savoy and a member of the university police into the defendant's dormitory room to disconnect the defendant's computer from the university system i'd like to discuss the remote access search first and then turn to the entry into the dormitory room concerning the remote connection to district court expressly found that there was a valid university policy concerning access to electronic data and other information and it applied to do this defendant to eliminate any reasonable expectation of privacy that this defendant had his computer in order to overturn those decisions i say those to those findings this court would have to find that those just to courts were clearly erroneous and that there were no facts in the record to support those findings well i guess the question is whether those policies really are or aren't at this kind of a computer at all services it may well be when the policy or policies were written that the authors of the policy didn't in the nation's someone bringing their own laptop and hooking it up to the university system but that in is what happened here right that is your honor and what language of the policy to you point to that clearly covers that instance when someone uses their own computer their own personal computer to hook up to the university system well the language of the policy sufficiently broad so that let me actually point to three three places in the policy the first place would be the opening statement of  the opening statement the introduction of the two to the policy which is located at page thirty five of the excerpts of record that clearly states the electronic data advisory committee was created by the university committee to clarify the privacy and confidentiality status of electronic data and to draft procedures for the university to follow in providing access to information in this form that statement is sufficient that's statements to traditionally broad to cover to cover all use to cover all users of the university system i would also refer i have it now i cited to the first statement of the first sentence in in the introduction i'd also like to just like to cite to the fifth paragraph that's statement which says in general all computer electronic files should be free from actually asked by any but the authorized users of those files exceptions to this basic principle should be kept to a minimum and made only where essential to and when to skip the  exceptions are going to apply to protect the integrity of the university and the rights and property of the state three allow system administrators to perform routine maintenance and respond to emergency situations such as combating viruses and the like thought your position is that the general broad statements in the policy cover notwithstanding that there was no specific reference to using personal computers to access the university system yes your honor i would also like to cite to paragraph five b of the actual policy itself which states nothing in these procedures is meant to preclude computer system administrators from authorizing a routine maintenance of campus computer or communication systems or the rectification emergency situations to threaten the integrity of the campus computer communication systems provided that use of access files is one that is soley to maintain or safeguarding the system which may include state guarding the system from illegal use or solving specific problems that's the instance we have here the defendant is hacked in to the university system and is using the university system to hack into other systems which is  improper any legal use of the university system itself let me ask a question that turns to the actual physical intrigue into the defendant's dorm room is that the government's position that that t he wasn't he was not real hard to get straight answers out of you for some reason after the first encounter with can can but during this scenario he was advised of his miranda rights wasn't  no you are can can i can give you the time line please do your apologies well regardless of the timeline if this was purely a university activity designed to protect the computer system of the university why was he advised of this miranda rights he was advised of his miranda rights after mr savoy disconnected his his computer from the university is mr savoy and university police show up at the dormitory room that they there's a little bit of a discrepancy as to which dormitory room it is it's either one fifteen or want to seven the that room first it was determined that that was not the correct room with the with the correct ip address it's at that point that mr savoy and the universe and the university police head toward room one o seven which is which is mr hakken camp's room now as they head searching for an answer or a response or an argument that tells me why it's the finding of the dorm room and him three in the disconnection of the computer and the things that followed it has nothing to do with the criminal investigation why heck and kim was given a miranda warning when mr hacking camp was given a miranda warning your honor only only after you've after the computer was disconnected it just seems to me and maybe i have this all wrong backwards that if their interest is surely in several in the link between this computer that they suspect of doing on authorized things on their system that once they achieve that disconnection they're done there's no reason to give a miranda warning and there's certainly no reason to interviewing don't tell me why the thinking is wrong well there is a reason to interview him your honor is there is actually there is actually a reason to interview him to learn the extent of the product prior intrusions not not necessarily to other computer systems but to the university system you are ok are you quite a portion of the record he's we're wondering if you have a reason to be quite sure now if you want to go ahead and say yes computer as they're coming out and counter master who can i believe yes they then ask him you know if he would consent to let them look at the computer and this is before any warnings are given y kind of the university lobby and it's there it's there that they basically questioned him well the record says just that mr hakken can't prove speak with you yes he did and then he will this is after they sit down at the table they gave him the miranda warnings he signs them away here's the question at some point the detective sheller asked mr hakken kept whether you could make an image or a copy of the computer hard drive yes he did and this was during the questioning of the text i've asked you to make and then just jeff if you can make an image analysis for the computer what was the defense response for that sequence would seem to me to indicate that sets down signs the form and at some point in the conversation they get consent to search the hard drive do you have another the the the other issue with respect to what was their real purpose and they went there i would also if the purpose was only just to disconnect the computer i guess the real question is why did so avoid the officer to bring all this fancy equipment to make a copy of the hard drive mean that's something that's always been a big mystery to me is that of all they wanted to do with this connected computer they didn't need to bring all this other fancy equipment that they had with them ready to go to copy the hard drive which is a very sort of laborious type process the only other thing is page the government with respect to the policy is on page thirty five of the excerpts they fail to address certain parts of that introduction which say that the proposed policy does not address all departments of schools may access students  united states person shooter