*

The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan,

sitting by designation.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 11a0119p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALEXANDER LUCAS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

N

Nos. 09-6035/6061

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.

No. 08-00026-001—Jennifer B. Coffman, Chief District Judge.

Argued: December 8, 2010

Decided and Filed: May 11, 2011 

Before: MOORE and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; COHN, District Judge.*

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Monica L. Thompson, DLA PIPER LLC (US), Chicago, Illinois, for

Appellant. David R. Weiser, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Louisville,

Kentucky, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Monica L. Thompson, DLA PIPER LLC (US),

Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Monica Wheatley, Terry M. Cushing, ASSISTANT

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Following entry of a conditional guilty plea

to charges of possessing and receiving child pornography, Alexander Lucas (“Lucas”)

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress graphic photographs and

1
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 2

videos that were discovered on his laptop computer during a consent search of his

residence for controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and “other material or records

pertaining to narcotics.” In view of the totality of the circumstances presented in the

case, we conclude that Lucas granted voluntary consent to search and that the laptop

search did not exceed the scope of his consent. For these reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2007, Det. Donald Burbrink with the Louisville Metro Police

Department received information from a fellow detective that a reliable confidential

informant (CI) disclosed to him that Lucas was growing marijuana inside his home at

3750 Boone Street in Louisville. At that time, Lucas was a 25-year-old college graduate

with a bachelor’s degree in economics.

Around 5:30 p.m. the same day, Burbrink and Sgt. Jason Lainhart visited Lucas

at his home to conduct a “knock and talk.” The officers were dressed in plain clothes

with their police badges visible. For tactical reasons, they approached the back door and

knocked. When Lucas opened the door, Burbrink identified himself as a police detective

and asked to talk with Lucas. Lucas invited the officers inside, so they stepped into the

laundry room, where they immediately smelled the aroma of burnt marijuana.

Burbrink stated he had heard there was marijuana in the house and he would

write a citation if Lucas possessed drug paraphernalia or a small amount of marijuana

for personal use. While Lucas and the police officers were talking, Burbrink noticed a

marijuana pipe on a shelf in plain view, so he asked if Lucas possessed any similar

items. Lucas produced a box containing rolling papers, marijuana pipes, and marijuana

residue or “shake,” but he denied there were any other drug-related items in the house.

The tone of this exchange was conversational, the officers did not threaten to arrest

Lucas, and no police weapons were drawn. Lucas did not appear to be intoxicated, and

he answered questions intelligently. During the conversation, three more police

detectives arrived at the back door of the house.
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 3

1

Lucas argues for the first time on appeal that Lainhart must have located the marijuana plants

in the bedroom closet during his protective sweep of the house, even before Lucas signed the consent-tosearch form while standing in the laundry room. This issue is not properly before us for review. But even

if it were, the evidence shows that Lucas agreed to the search of his residence while Lainhart was

conducting the protective sweep. By the time Lainhart returned to the laundry room, Lucas had already

signed the consent form. The evidence does not confirm that Lainhart found the marijuana plants during

his protective sweep or that he found the plants before Lucas granted consent to search his residence.

Burbrink asked Lucas to sign a consent form to allow a search of his house, but

Lucas hesitated. The officers could tell that Lucas did not want to sign the form.

Burbrink explained that probable cause existed to obtain a search warrant that night

based on the marijuana pipe in plain view, the aroma of smoked marijuana, the drug

paraphernalia Lucas produced, and information provided by a CI that Lucas was growing

marijuana and hosting marijuana-smoking parties. When Lucas did not sign the form,

Sgt. Lainhart began a protective sweep to secure the house in anticipation of obtaining

a search warrant.

Lucas gestured to Det. Burbrink and said, “What do I have to sign?” Burbrink

interpreted the gesture to mean that Lucas knew the officers had enough evidence to

obtain a search warrant and would do so. Burbrink verbally reviewed the consent form

to inform Lucas of his constitutional right to refuse permission to search. Burbrink also

orally advised Lucas of his right to stop the search at any time. Lucas signed the consent

form at 5:45 p.m., approximately ten minutes after the officers first arrived. If Lucas had

not signed the consent form, the police would have sought a search warrant. By signing

the form, Lucas agreed that the officers could search his residence for illegal controlled

substances, drug paraphernalia, and “other material or records pertaining to narcotics.”

Because the CI had disclosed that the marijuana growing operation was located

in Lucas’s bedroom, the officers searched there first. Inside the closet, they found a

number of marijuana plants, each separately potted and named.1

 Lainhart noticed a

digital camera sitting on a night stand near the closet. Based upon his training and

experience, he knew that marijuana growers commonly take “bragging” photographs.

He reviewed the digital images on the camera and found some that depicted marijuana

usage. The officers made no effort to search a desktop computer located in the bedroom.
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 4

After the marijuana plants were found, Burbrink and Lucas moved to the living

room, where they talked and played video games while the search continued. The living

room was the last place searched.

Upon entering the living room, Lainhart noticed a laptop sitting on a small table

in the corner. On the keyboard tray, Lainhart discovered a handwritten marijuana plant

“grow chart.” The first page contained a numbered list of the named marijuana plants

found earlier in the bedroom closet, as well as height measurements, pot sizes, and recent

notes about the plants. The second page was a similar blank chart. The third page

appeared to be Lucas’s general “to-do” list, although the word “clones” appeared at the

bottom of the page.

Lainhart decided to look on the laptop’s hard drive for an Excel spreadsheet

similar to the handwritten grow chart. Based on his training and experience, he knew

that marijuana growers commonly keep similar data and digital photographs on

computers and upload the information to the Internet. Standing near the laptop in

Lucas’s direct line of sight, Lainhart asked if the computer was password-protected, and

Lucas responded that it was not. Lucas did not object to a search of his laptop, or claim

that a search would exceed the scope of his consent to search, or try to withdraw his

consent to search.

Burbrink then asked Lucas how he learned to grow marijuana. Lucas replied that

he used a share program on the Internet designed to allow people to provide marijuana

growing tips to each other. He explained that he cloned plants for re-sale.

In searching the computer, Lainhart first opened the “My Documents” folder, but

he did not find any Excel spreadsheets. Next, he opened the “My Photos” folder, but he

did not locate any drug-related photos. He found some photographs of Lucas in the nude

and briefly joked with Lucas about those photographs.

Lainhart then noticed a removable thumb drive connected to the computer.

When he accessed that drive, thumbnail images of child pornography appeared on the

screen. He viewed six or seven images to confirm that he had discovered child
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 5

pornography. He stopped searching the computer, turned to Burbrink and said, “That

guy is under arrest.” Lucas asked what was going on, but Burbrink did not know.

Lainhart then revealed that he had found a lot of “kiddie porn.” He contacted the Crimes

Against Children Unit (CACU) and asked for assistance.

Burbrink handcuffed Lucas’s wrists in the front and placed him under arrest.

Lucas said, “I have a problem.” Burbrink told Lucas to stop talking and to wait for the

CACU detectives to arrive. During the next hour, the detectives offered Lucas chips and

a drink and allowed him to smoke cigarettes. Lucas and Burbrink continued to play

video games.

CACU Detectives Daniel McNamara and Mark Wampler, dressed in plain

clothes, responded to Lainhart’s call. McNamara received a brief synopsis of events

from Lainhart and then approached Lucas, who was still sitting handcuffed on the sofa.

Although McNamara detected a faint odor of smoked marijuana, Lucas was not

intoxicated and he was very cooperative.

McNamara identified himself as a CACU detective and stated he was interested

only in Lucas’s computers. Upon McNamara’s request, Lucas signed a second consent

form at 8:21 p.m., granting McNamara permission to seize and examine the computers,

computer media, and peripheral equipment. The form instructed Lucas of his

constitutional right to refuse permission to search. Lucas did not tell McNamara that he

refused consent to search his computers or that he had not consented to a search of his

residence.

After the evidence was gathered, officers transported Lucas to the police station.

McNamara read Lucas the Miranda rights, and Lucas signed and initialed a rights waiver

form at 9:20 p.m. A short video clip of the interview shows McNamara and Lucas

seated at a small table in a windowless interview room with the door shut. Lucas sat in

the corner facing into the room. McNamara asked Lucas to tell him what happened at

the house before McNamara arrived. Lucas calmly explained the events in the laundry

room and then said, “They asked me for consent to search, which I gave them.”
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 6

2

Lucas entered an unconditional guilty plea to manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(D), but he did not raise on appeal any issues concerning that conviction. 

 Two days later McNamara obtained a state search warrant for the Lucas

residence, the laptop and desktop computers, the thumb drive, assorted DVDs, VHS

tapes and CDs, and other related equipment seized from the residence. He did so to

permit a technician to complete a forensic examination of the computers in the event

Lucas decided to withdraw his consent to the search. The forensic examiner recovered

more than 900 images of child pornography and more than 300 minutes of footage in at

least 45 videos of child rape.

A grand jury charged Lucas with knowing possession and receipt of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) & 2252A(a)(2). Lucas moved

to suppress his statements and all of the evidence seized. The district court, adopting as

modified a Report and Recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, denied the motion

to suppress. Lucas then entered his conditional guilty plea to the child pornography

charges.2 The district court imposed a prison sentence of 90 months, to be followed by

10 years of supervised release. This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this Court examines the

district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. United

States v. Bowers, 594 F.3d 522, 525 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 340 (2010). A

factual finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support the

finding, the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). If there are

two permissible views of the evidence, the district court’s determination cannot be

clearly erroneous. Id. at 574. This Court reviews the evidence in the light most likely

to support the district court’s decision. United States v. See, 574 F.3d 309, 313 (6th Cir.

2009).
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 7

II. Voluntary Consent To Search

Lucas first contends that the police coerced him to sign the initial consent form

and, as a result, he did not grant voluntary consent to a search of his residence and

computers. While the government urges us to reject this argument as both abandoned

and waived below, the government also contends that Lucas cannot prevail on the merits

of this issue in any event.

1. Abandonment and waiver

Ordinarily, an issue that is not raised in the district court is not considered on

appeal unless the question is presented with sufficient clarity and completeness for us

to resolve the matter without further development of the record. See Lockhart v.

Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251, 261 (6th Cir. 2009). Additionally, the waiver rule of Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 146 (1985), is not jurisdictional, and a party’s failure to file

specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation may be excused

in the interest of justice. Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1222-23 (6th Cir. 1987).

It appears to us that Lucas abandoned the consent issue by not discussing it in his

supplemental brief filed after the suppression hearing and that Lucas waived the issue

by not making a specific objection in response to the Report and Recommendation. We

nonetheless choose to exercise our discretion to address the question in the interest of

justice because the record is sufficiently clear and complete to make a determination.

We review, however, only for plain error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b); Thomas, 474 U.S. at

155 & n.15. Lucas must show that (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain, i.e.,

obvious or clear; (3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously

affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United

States v. Davis, 514 F.3d 596, 615 (6th Cir. 2008).
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 8

2. Lucas has not shown plain error

The Fourth Amendment permits a search without a warrant if valid consent to

search is given. United States v. Hinojosa, 606 F.3d 875, 881 (6th Cir. 2010); United

States v. Morgan, 435 F.3d 660, 663 (6th Cir. 2006). “The government bears the burden

of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence, through ‘clear and positive

testimony,’ . . . that the consent was voluntary, unequivocal, specific, intelligently given,

and uncontaminated by duress or coercion.” United States v. Canipe, 569 F.3d 597, 602

(6th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380, 385 (6th Cir. 1999)), cert.

denied, 130 S.Ct. 655 (2009). Whether the government carried this burden is a question

of fact to be decided from the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,

412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973); Hinojosa, 606 F.3d at 881; Canipe, 569 F.3d at 602.

In evaluating the circumstances presented here, we first acknowledge that the

“knock and talk” procedure used by the police is a legitimate investigative technique

aimed at achieving a suspect’s consent to search. United States v. Thomas, 430 F.3d

274, 277 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d 563, 567 n.2 (6th Cir.

2005). We consider Lucas’s age, intelligence, and education; whether he understood the

right to refuse consent to search; and whether he understood his constitutional rights.

United States v. Ivy, 165 F.3d 397, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). We also consider the length and

nature of the detention, the use of coercive or punishing conduct by the police, and

indications of more subtle forms of coercion that might have affected Lucas’s judgment.

Id. No single factor is dispositive. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 226. While knowledge of

the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account, the government is not

required to establish such knowledge to show an effective consent. United States v.

Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 206-07 (2002). With these principles in mind, we examine the

facts presented.

Lucas is a college-educated man who invited the officers into his home and

conversed with them for approximately ten minutes. Upon entering the house, the police

smelled burnt marijuana, observed a marijuana pipe in plain view, and examined the

marijuana residue and drug paraphernalia that Lucas produced. The officers’
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 9

observations, combined with the information they obtained earlier from a reliable CI,

provided sufficient probable cause to search the residence for narcotics-related evidence.

Burbrink’s warning that a search warrant would be sought if Lucas did not grant consent

to search was a proper statement that did not taint the subsequent search. See United

States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943, 954 (6th Cir. 1998).

Lucas argues that the police coerced him to sign the initial consent form. He

points to the presence of five officers, Burbrink’s initial failure to disclose the true

reason why the police visited the home, Burbrink’s promise to write a citation when he

knew he was searching for a marijuana growing operation which, if found, would result

in Lucas’s arrest, and Lainhart’s show of authority in conducting a protective sweep

without explaining to Lucas why the sweep was done. Lucas contends that his gesture

to Burbrink and his statement, “What do I have to sign?” can only be viewed as

acquiescence to police authority due to an overborne will. See Worley, 193 F.3d at 386-

387 (holding that suspect’s response to airport police when asked for consent to search

luggage, “You’ve got the badge, I guess you can,” was not unequivocal statement of free

and voluntary consent, but acquiescence and expression of futility in resistance to

authority).

Having carefully evaluated the evidence under the plain error standard, we are

not persuaded that Lucas’s initial hesitation to grant consent to search is indicative of

police coercion. Burbrink clearly informed Lucas of his constitutional right to refuse

consent to search, as well as his power to stop a search at any time. Such circumstances

distinguish the Worley case on which Lucas relies because in that case the defendant was

not told of his constitutional right to refuse consent to search or his right to stop a search.

Worley, 193 F.3d at 387. It is also notable that the request for consent to search occurred

in Lucas’s home, as opposed to the busy airport where Worley felt pressured to

cooperate with police to avoid “‘an untoward scene before the crowds of people[.]’” Id.

(quoted case omitted); Canipe, 569 F.3d at 603.

Lucas’s initial response to the request for consent to search indicates to us that

Lucas knew he had a right to refuse the search and that he contemplated exercising that
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 10

right. Lucas apparently realized, however, that the police had sufficient evidence to

obtain a search warrant and that they would do so. Through execution of a search

warrant, the police certainly would uncover the marijuana growing operation–and

perhaps the child pornography collection–that night. Faced with the gravity of the

situation and the likely course of events, Lucas decided to cooperate with the police and

actually did cooperate throughout the evening. He voluntarily signed two separate

consent-to-search forms hours apart, he confirmed that his laptop was not passwordprotected, and he did not object to any aspect of the search after he signed the consent

forms. See United States v. Budd, 549 F.3d 1140, 1146-47 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding

defendant granted police voluntary consent to search his apartment and Seagate hard

drive for child pornography when he twice granted verbal consent to search his

apartment and twice signed consent-to-search forms at separate times). Most telling is

Lucas’s calm statement to McNamara during the interview that the police officers asked

for his consent to search and he gave it to them.

Having considered this issue fully, we are convinced that Lucas did not establish

plain error. The totality of the circumstances supports our determination that Lucas

consented voluntarily to the search of his home for narcotics, paraphernalia, and “other

material or records pertaining to narcotics.”

III. The Scope Of The Consent To Search 

The second issue before us is whether Lainhart’s search of the laptop computer

fell within the scope of Lucas’s written consent to search his residence for narcoticsrelated evidence. We begin our analysis with the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991), that the scope of a search is generally

defined by its expressed object and that the standard for measuring the scope of a

suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is “‘objective’ reasonableness–what

would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the

officer and the suspect?”

In Jimeno, the suspect gave a police officer permission to search his car after the

officer stated he was looking for drugs. Id. The question was whether it was reasonable
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 11

for the police officer to conclude that the suspect’s general consent to a search of his car

included consent to examine a container–a closed paper bag–lying on the floor of the car.

Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251. The Supreme Court held that a reasonable person would know

narcotics are generally carried in some form of container; therefore, it was objectively

reasonable for the police officer to conclude that the suspect’s general consent to search

the car also included consent to search containers within the car which might conceal

drugs. Id. The Court refused to require the police to seek and receive permission from

a suspect to search each closed container found within a car, observing that a “suspect

may of course delimit as he chooses the scope of the search to which he consents. But

if his consent would reasonably be understood to extend to a particular container, the

Fourth Amendment provides no grounds for requiring a more explicit authorization.”

Id. at 252.

In reversing the Florida Supreme Court’s affirmance of the suppression order,

the Court distinguished the facts in Jimeno from United States v. Wells, 539 So.2d 464

(Fla. 1989), where the Florida Supreme Court had held that a suspect’s consent to search

the trunk of a car did not include authority to open a locked briefcase found inside the

trunk. Id. at 251. “It is very likely unreasonable[,]” the Supreme Court said, “to think

that a suspect, by consenting to the search of his trunk, has agreed to the breaking open

of a locked briefcase within the trunk, but it is otherwise with respect to a closed paper

bag.” Id. at 251-52.

We followed Jimeno when we decided United States v. Garrido-Santana, 360

F.3d 565, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2004), also an automobile search case. We held that the

search of the vehicle’s gas tank fell within the scope of the suspect’s written consent to

search the car where the suspect knew the officer was looking for drugs and the suspect

did not object to a search of the gas tank, did not clarify that the scope of his “sweeping

consent” excluded such a search, and did not revoke his consent, even though he had

opportunity to do so. Id. at 576. We determined it was objectively reasonable for the

police to conclude that the “general consent to search the vehicle included consent to

search any container within that vehicle that might have held illegal contraband.” Id.
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 12

We also recognized that the Fourth Amendment did not require the police to obtain

separate permission to search the gas tank. Id.

In Canipe, 569 F.3d at 604, also a vehicle search case, one issue we considered

was whether police officers exceeded the scope of consent to “look in” a truck when they

opened two closed containers found in the truck to discover a handgun and ammunition.

Acknowledging that the question fell “between two genre of cases exemplified by”

Jimeno and Wells, we observed that “[w]hile the officers did not convey to Canipe the

object of their search (distinguishing [the] case from the permissible consent search in

Jimeno), they also did not break or pry open locked containers (distinguishing [the] case

from the impermissible consent search in Wells).” Id. at 605. We stated that “it is

‘ordinarily’ true that ‘general consent [to a search] permits the opening of closed but

unlocked containers found in the place as to which consent was given’ even ‘where

officers did not tell the suspect the object of their search.’” Id. (citing, e.g., United States

v. Gant, 112 F.3d 239, 243 (6th Cir. 1997)). Because the investigator in Canipe asked

the suspect whether he had anything in his vehicle that might be unlawful, such

questioning placed the suspect on notice that any unlawful item would be the subject of

a search. Id. at 606. Thereafter, Canipe’s general consent to search the truck “reasonably

included permission to search any container that might have held illegal objects.” Id.

Canipe made no attempt to revoke or limit the scope of his consent, although he was at

or near the scene of the search. Id. For these reasons, we held the district court did not

clearly err in ruling that the search fell within the scope of Canipe’s consent. Id.

We have not previously issued a published opinion applying the analysis of these

automobile search cases in the context of a consent search of a personal computer

located inside a private residence. In a similar child pornography case that was resolved

in an unpublished opinion, we addressed the computer search issue briefly. United

States v. Cottle, 355 F. App’x 18 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 3490 (2010).

In that case, the defendant asserted on appeal that a sentencing enhancement should not

apply because his father’s consent to search the residence they shared did not give the

police authority to search the defendant’s personal computer located inside the residence.

Id. at 21. We rejected the challenge, citing Canipe for the proposition that “[g]eneral
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 13

consent to search reasonably includes permission to search any container that might hold

illegal objects.” Id. Based on the third-party consent to search given to the police by the

defendant’s father, we determined that the search of the house and the computer was

reasonable. Id. See also United States v. Morgan, 435 F.3d 660, 663-64 (6th Cir. 2006)

(holding warrantless search of defendant’s computer for child pornography was justified

where police reasonably concluded from facts available that defendant’s wife had

apparent authority to consent to the computer search).

In this case, the defined object of the search, as clearly explained to Lucas, was

the location and seizure of narcotics-related evidence. Like the district court, we believe

a typical reasonable person, viewing objectively the exchange that took place between

Lucas and the police in the laundry room, would determine that Lucas granted voluntary,

written consent for the police “to make a complete search” of his residence for controlled

substances, drug paraphernalia, and “other material or records pertaining to narcotics,”

and to “take from there any evidence pertaining to this investigation.”

Before Lainhart touched the laptop, the police had already discovered the

marijuana plants in the closet and the digital photographs on the camera depicting

marijuana usage. Also, on the keyboard tray below the laptop, Lainhart had found a

handwritten “grow” chart. Through training and experience, Lainhart knew that

individuals involved in growing marijuana often save plant growth data on computers

in the form of Excel spreadsheets and upload that information, along with “bragging”

photographs, to the Internet. He also knew that individuals involved in dealing or using

controlled substances commonly store narcotics-related records and photographs on their

computers and other electronic devices. In fact, Lucas disclosed to the police that he

utilized the Internet to learn how to clone marijuana plants for re-sale and that he used

a share program to exchange information with other growers.

Upon finding the handwritten “grow” chart, Lainhart turned to Lucas, who sat

a few feet away, and asked him if the laptop was password-protected. See United States

v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 232 (3d Cir. 2011) (password protection is a factor that may be

considered in determining suspect’s privacy interest in computer). Lucas responded that
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 14

3

We have no occasion to consider how our analysis might differ if Lucas’s computer had been

password-protected or if his electronic files had been encrypted or otherwise secured because such facts

are not before us.

it was not. Lainhart then opened the “My Documents” folder to look for an Excel

spreadsheet like the one he found in handwritten form, and he opened the “My Photos”

folder to look for photographs of marijuana plants or usage. Lucas did not at any time

object to the computer search that was taking place in his presence, nor did he withdraw

his consent to search. He also did not make any effort to clarify that he did not

contemplate a search of his laptop when he granted written consent to search his home

for “other material or records pertaining to narcotics.”

In light of these circumstances, the district court found that Lucas himself

believed the search of his laptop fell within the scope of his initial written consent to

search because he confirmed the computer was not password-protected and he did not

in any way object to the search of electronic files. The district court analogized the

search of Lucas’s non-secure laptop to the search of a closed, unlocked container,

relying on Jimeno and several cases from other jurisdictions. See United States v. AlMarri, 230 F. Supp. 2d 535, 539-41 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); United States v. Roberts, 86 F.

Supp. 2d 678, 688-89 (S.D. Tex. 2000), aff’d, 247 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 2001); United

States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 936-37 (W.D. Tex. 1998); United States v. O’Razvi,

No. 97 CR. 1250, 1998 WL 405048, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 1998); United States v.

David, 756 F. Supp. 1385, 1390 (D. Nev. 1991); and United States v. Blas, No. 90-CR162, 1990 WL 265179, at *21 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 1990). In light of Jimeno and our own

prior holdings in Garrido-Santana and Canipe, we cannot say that the district court

clearly erred in making its findings.

Our decision to uphold Lainhart’s entry into Lucas’s electronic files based on the

facts of this case should not be read as a grant of broad authority to the police to open

a suspect’s non-secured computer and examine at will all of the electronic files stored

there.3

 We have previously cautioned in the context of third-party consent that

“[a]uthority to consent to a search of a residence is not necessarily co-extensive with

authority to consent to a closed container stored in that area.” United States v. Aaron,
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 15

4

Lucas states that Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 334-35 (6th Cir. 2001), stands for the proposition

that, “in this circuit, individual computer files are treated as separate containers, at least in the context of

a search warrant.” Appellant’s Br. at 22-23. Guest does not support Lucas’s statement. The issue in Guest

was whether a search warrant allowing police to search for personal communications related to the offense

permitted the officers to seize the computer and search it off-site in order to separate files that were

covered by the warrant from those that were not. Guest, 255 F.3d at 334-35. We held it was permissible

for the police to seize the computer and search it later at another location due to the technical difficulties

in searching a computer in a suspect’s home. Id. at 335. See also Stabile, 633 F.3d at 234 (the practical

realities of computer investigations counsel against on-site searches).

33 F. App’x 180, 184 (6th Cir. 2002). And the district court below shared our concern

that analogizing computers to other physical objects when applying Fourth Amendment

law is not an exact fit because computers hold so much personal and sensitive

information touching on many private aspects of life. We recognize individuals have

a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of emails stored, sent, or received

through a commercial internet service provider. United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266,

288 (6th Cir. 2010). And we know there is a far greater potential “for the

‘intermingling’ of documents and a consequent invasion of privacy when police execute

a search for evidence on a computer.” United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 986 (10th

Cir. 2001).

We uphold Lainhart’s initial entry into Lucas’s laptop because Lucas consented

to the search of his non-secure computer for “other material or records pertaining to

narcotics,” the police had already found narcotics-related evidence that justified

Lainhart’s limited search for the same or similar drug-related records and photographs

on the computer, and Lucas did not lodge any objection to the search of his computer,

clarify the scope of his consent, or withdraw his consent.4

Finally, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Lainhart did not violate

the Fourth Amendment when he accessed the removable thumb drive connected to the

laptop and child pornography appeared unexpectedly on the screen. This case is not like

United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 1999), where the police officer

inadvertently discovered child pornography while searching a computer for drug-related

documents. There the officer failed to stop searching the computer pending issuance of

a search warrant and instead rummaged through the hard drive for five hours looking for

additional child pornography. By contrast, Lainhart’s actions mirror those of the police
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 16

officer in Walser, 275 F.3d at 984-85, who, in searching a computer for drug-related

evidence, stumbled upon one file that displayed numerous thumbnail images of girls

engaged in sexual acts with men. Believing the material to be child pornography, the

officer enlarged the thumbnails to confirm his belief and then immediately ceased

searching in anticipation of obtaining a search warrant. Id. at 985. In that situation, the

Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress because the computer search

fell within the parameters of the initial drug search. Id. at 987. See also United States

v. Whaley, No. 10-12255, 2011 WL 521174, at **4-5 (11th Cir. Feb. 16, 2011) (citing

Walser where officer inadvertently found child pornography by opening an electronic

file in a reasonable, though mistaken, belief that the file was the subject of the

individual’s consent); United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 476 (8th Cir. 2010)

(distinguishing Carey where officers unexpectedly encountered child pornography on

flash drive and promptly stopped searching to obtain a search warrant).

Similarly, in United States v. Wells, No. 3:08-cr-0003-JAJ, 2008 WL 2783264,

at * 2 (S.D. Iowa July 15, 2008), a police officer conducted a consent search of a

computer for records related to drug trafficking. Id. While searching, the officer found

a file folder containing images of child pornography. The officer reviewed three pictures

in a ten-minute period and then stopped searching, secured the computer, and obtained

a search warrant. Id. The Wells court determined that the search for drug records on the

computer fell within the scope of third-party consent to search the apartment, but that

no objectively reasonable person could agree that consent was given to search the

apartment purposefully for child pornography. Id. at *5. Because the officer discovered

the child pornography accidentally and immediately stopped searching to obtain a search

warrant, however, the motion to suppress was denied. Id. at *6.

We find the reasoning of these cases persuasive. Here there is no evidence that

Lainhart intentionally searched for child pornography and purposefully exceeded the

scope of Lucas’s consent to search for “other material or records pertaining to narcotics.”

When thumbnail images suddenly appeared on the screen, Lainhart enlarged just a few

of them to be certain he was looking at child pornography. Convinced of the unlawful

nature of the material, he immediately stopped searching and called the CACU
Nos. 09-6035/6061 United States v. Lucas Page 17

detectives, who then obtained Lucas’s voluntary consent, and subsequently a search

warrant, to seize and search the computers thoroughly for child pornography. As a

result, we conclude that the district court did not err in its evaluation of the Fourth

Amendment issues.

In light of our holding that Lainhart’s search of the laptop fell within the scope

of Lucas’s voluntary consent to search, we need not consider whether Lucas’s signature

on the second consent form permitting a forensic examination of his computers was

sufficiently attenuated from his signature on the first consent from to dissipate any taint

caused by Lainhart’s search of the laptop. We also need not address the argument that

the child pornography would have been discovered inevitably through execution of a

search warrant.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.