Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a user of file-sharing software has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his publicly shared files because it is not an expectation of privacy that society is willing to recognize. See United States v. Samples, No. 3-08-CR-12, 2011 WL 4907315, at *5 (N.D.Tex. Sept. 15, 2011) (“Counsel had no basis for challenging the use of forensic software to download files from a peer-to-peer network because a user of file-sharing software has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his public files.”); see also United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (“Borowy’s subjective intention not to share his files did not create an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the face of such widespread public access”); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 842-45 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Perrine 518 F.3d 1196, 1205 
 Holding statements: (A) holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable (B) holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files (C) holding stults had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files that the fbi retrieved from his personal computer where stults admittedly installed and used limewire to make his files accessible to others for file sharing one who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking (D) holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer (E) holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer
Output (English): holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable