## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A u gu s t 24, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. RA Y A N D RU S, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. N o. 06- 3094

OR DER AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D . C . N O . 0 5 - C R - 2 0 0 3 2 - C M) B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M c K A Y , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge , KELLY , HENR Y , B RI S CO E , L UC E RO , M UR P HY , HA RTZ , O’ BRI EN, M CCO NNELL, TY M KOVI CH, GORS UCH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

T he appe l l ant ’ s pet i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng i s deni ed. J udge M cK ayvot ed t o gr ant r ehea r i ng. I n deny i ng r ehea r i ng, how ever , the pane l m aj or i tynot es thati t s opi ni on i s l i m i t ed t o the narr ow ques t i on of the appa r entauthor i tyof a homeow nert o cons entt o a s ear ch of a comput eron pr emi s es i n t he s peci fi c fa ctual s ett i ng pr es ent ed, i ncl udi ng the undi s put ed-2-

f a c t th a t th e o w n e r h a d a c c e ss to th e c o m p u ter , p a id f o r in ter n e t ac c e ss , an d h a d a n e -m a il addr es s us ed t o r egi s t eron a w ebs i t e pr ovi di ng acc es s t o the fi l es of i nt er es tt o l aw e n f o rc e m e n t. A m ong t he ques t i ons notpr es ent ed i n thi s m att er , and forw hi ch ther e i s no fac tual d ev elop m en t i n the re co rd, are the ex tent o f c ap ab il ityan d ac ti v ati o n o f p assw o rd p ro tec tio n o r u se r p ro f

iles o n h o m e c o m p u ter s, th e c a p a b ili tyo f E n C a se so f

tw a re to det ectthe pr es ence of pas s w or d pr ot ect i on ora us erpr ofi l e, orthe degr ee t o w hi ch l aw e n f o rc e m e n t c o n f

ro n ts p a s s w o rd p ro te c tio n o r u s e r p ro f ile s o n h o m e c o m p u te rs . Fi nal l y , appel l ant ’ s ar gum entpr emi s ed on K yl l o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 533 U . S. 27 (2 0 0 1 ) w a s m a d e f

o r th e f irst tim e in h is p e tit io n f o r re h e a rin g a n d w a s n o t in iti a lly p re s e n te d to th e p a n e l. T h e a rg u m e n t is th e re f o re f o rf e ite d . U ni t ed Stat es v. C har l ey , 189 F . 3 d 1 2 5 1 , 1 2 6 5 , n . 1 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e re q u est fo r en b an c re h ea ri n g w as tran sm itted to all o f th e jud g es o f th e c o u rt w ho ar e i n r egul aract i ve s ervi ce. A pol l w as r eques t ed and a m aj or i tyof the ac t i ve ju d g e s v o ted to d e n yth e re q u e st. Ju d g e s K e lly , L u c e ro , M c C o n n e ll an d H o lm e s v o ted to g ra n t r e h e a ri n g . E n ter e d f o r th e C o u rt, ELI SABETH A. SHU M AK ER C lerk o f C o u rt

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A p r i l 25, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 3094 RA Y A N D RU S, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D . C . N O . 0 5 - C R - 2 0 0 3 2 - C M) M e lissa H a rriso n , A ss ista n t F e d e ra l P u b lic D e f e n d e r (D a v id J. P h ill ip s, F e d e ra l P u b lic D e f e n d e r, w ith h e r o n th e b rie f s), K a n sa s C ity , K a n sa s, f o r D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. L eon J . Pat t on, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( E r i c F. M el gr en, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th hi m on t he br i ef) , K ans as C i ty , K ans as , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B ef o re M UR P HY , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. M UR P HY , C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

I . I nt roduct i on D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t R a yA n d ru s w a s in d icte d o n o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

c h ild p o rno g rap h y , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 2 (a)(4)(B ). A gent s of the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “I C E ”) found pornogr aphi c i m ages of chi l dr en on A ndrus ’ hom e comput eraft erA ndrus ’ father , D r . B ai l eyA ndrus , cons ent ed t o a s ear ch o f th e A n d rus h o m e a n d A n d rus’ c o m p u ter. A n d rus m o v ed to su p p ress the incu lpato ry evi dence found on hi s comput erdur i ng the s ear ch, ar gui ng D r . A ndrus ’ cons entw as not vol unt aryand thatD r . A ndrus l acke d both actual and appa r entauthor i tyt o cons entt o a sea rch o f th e c o m p u ter. T h e d istri ct co u rtd eterm ined D r. A n d rus’ c o n sen t w as v o lun tary a n d th a t D r. A n d ru s h a d a p p a re n t au th o rityto c o n se n t to th e se a rc h . T h e d istric t co u rt, a c c o rd in g ly, d e n ie d A n d ru s ’ m o tio n to s u p p re s s . A ft erthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on, A ndrus pl eade d gui l tyt o the cha r ge agai ns thi m butr et ai ned the r i ghtt o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s s uppr es s i on m oti on . H e w as sent enced t o seven tym on ths’ i m pri sonm ent fol l ow ed b ythree y ears ’ su p e rv ise d re lea se . In th is a p p e a l, A n d ru s c h a llen g e s th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is s uppr es s i on m ot i on. E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, thi s courtconcl udes D r. A n d ru s h a d a p p a re n t a u th o ri ty to c o n s e n t to a s e a rc h o f R a yA n d ru s ’ c o m p u te r. W e ther efor e af

f i rm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f A n d ru s ’ m o tio n to s u p p re s s .-3-

I I . Backg r ound Feder al author i t i es fi r s tbeca m e i nt er es t ed i n R ayA ndrus dur i ng an i nves t i gat i on of R egpay , a thi r d- partybi l l i ng and cr edi tcar d aggr egat i ng companythatpr ovi ded s ubs cr i ber s w i th acc es s t o w ebs i t es cont ai ni ng chi l d pornogr aphy . T he i nves t i gat i on of R egpayl ed t o an i nves t i gat i on of R egpays ubs cr i ber s . O ne of the s ubs cr i ber s pr ovi di ng per s onal i nform at i on and a c r edi tcar d num bert o R egpayw as an i ndi vi dual i dent i fy i ng hi m s el f as “R ayA ndrus ” at“3208 W . 81s tT err . , L eaw ood, K S. ” The A ndrus R egpay s u b s c ri p tio n w a s u s e d to a c c e s s a p o rn o g ra p h ic w e b s ite c a lle d w w w .s u n s h in e b o y s .c o m . R ecord ch ecks w i th the dri vers l i cense b ureau an d p ostoff i ce i nd i cat ed R ayA nd rus, B a ile yA n d ru s , a n d a th ir d m a n , R ic h a rd A n d ru s , a ll u s e d th e W e s t 8 1 s t T e rr a c e a d d re s s . T h e c re d it c a rd n u m b e r p ro v id e d to R e g p a yw a s d e te rm in e d to b e lo n g to R a yA n d ru s . T he emai l addr es s pr ovi ded t o R egpay , “bandrus @ kc. rr . com, ” w as det erm i ned t o be a s s o c ia te d w ith D r. B a ile yA n d ru s . T he fe der al i nves t i gat i on i nt o t he A ndrus hous ehol d began i n J anuary2004 and focus ed pr i m ar i l yon R ayA ndrus . A tl eas tone age ntconduct ed s ur vei l l ance on the A ndrus r es i dence and knew R ayA ndrus w or ked atthe Shaw nee M i s s i on School . E i ght m o n th s in to th e in v e stig a tio n , ag e n ts b e liev e d th e yd id n o t h a v e e n o u g h in f o rm a tio n to obt ai n a s ear ch w arr antforthe A ndrus r es i dence . T hey , ther efor e, att empt ed t o gather m o re in f o rm a tio n b yd o in g a “ k n o c k a n d talk ” in ter v iew w ith th e h o p e o f b e in g a b le to conducta cons ents ear ch. I C E Speci al A gentC heatham and L eaw ood Pol i ce D et ect i ve W o o lle n a rr iv e d a t th e A n d ru s h o u s e a t a p p ro x im a te ly 8 :4 5 a .m . o n A u g u s t 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 .-4-

I C E Speci al A gentK anat zar , a for ens i c comput erexpert , acc om pani ed C heatham and W o o llen to th e re sid e n c e , b u t w a ited o u tsid e in h is c a r f o r C h e a th a m ’s a u th o riz a tio n to e n te r t h e p re m is e s . D r . A ndrus , age ni nety - one, ans w er ed the doori n hi s paj amas. D r . A ndrus i nvi t ed the offi cer s i nt o t he r es i dence and, acc or di ng t o the t es t i m onyof C heatham and W ool l en, t he th re e sa t in D r. A n d ru s’ liv in g ro o m , w h e re th e o f f ice rs le a rn e d th a t R a yA n d ru s liv e d in the ce nt erbedr oom i n t he r es i dence . I n r es pons e t o the off i cer s ’ ques t i ons , D r . A ndrus i ndi cat ed R ayA ndrus di d notpayr entand l i ved i n the home t o hel p car e forhi s agi ng par ent s . C heatham t es t i fi ed he c oul d s ee the doort o R ayA ndrus ’ bedr oom w as open and as ked D r . A ndrus w hetherhe had a cce s s t o the bedr oom . D r . A ndrus t es t i fi ed he ans w er ed “y es ” and t ol d t he off i cer s he fe l tfr ee t o ent erthe r oom w hen the doorw as o p e n , b u t a lw a y s k n o c k e d if th e d o o r w a s c lo s e d . C h e a th a m a s k e d D r. A n d ru s f o r c o n s e n t to s e a rc h th e h o u s e a n d a n yc o m p u te rs in it. D r . A ndrus s i gned a w r i t t en cons entform i ndi cat i ng hi s w i l l i ngnes s t o cons entt o a p re m ise s a n d c o m p u ter se a rc h . H e led C h e a th a m in to R a yA n d ru s’ b e d ro o m to sh o w h im w her e the comput erw as l ocat ed. A ft erD r . A ndrus s i gned the cons entform , C heatham w ent out si de to sum m on K anatzari nto the resi den ce. K anatzarw ent s trai gh ti nto A nd rus’ bedr oom and bega n as s embl i ng hi s for ens i c equi pm ent . K anat zarr emoved t he cove r fr om A ndrus ’ comput erand hooked hi s l apt op and otherequi pm entt o i t . D r . A ndrus tes tifie d h e w a s p re se n t at th e b e g in n in g o f th e se a rc h b u t lef

t th e b e d ro o m sh o rtly ther eaf t er . K anat zart es t i fi ed i tt ook aboutt en t o fi ft een mi nut es t o connec thi s equi pm entK anat zart es t i fi ed thats om eone w i thoutfor ens i c equi pm entw oul d need Ray 1 A n d ru s ’ u s e r n a m e a n d p a s s w o rd to a c c e s s f ile s s to re d w ith in A n d ru s ’ u s e r p ro f ile . JP E G is a c o m m o n lyu se d m e th o d f o r c o m p re ss in g a n d sto rin g e lec tro n ic 2 p h o to g ra p h ic im a g e s. JP E G f iles a re u su a llysa v e d w ith th e “ .jpg ” e x ten sio n a p p e n d e d to th e c o m p u te r f

ile n a m e a n d in d ic a te th e f ile c o n ta in s a p h o to g ra p h o r g ra p h ic a l im a g e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. W

al s er , 2 7 5 F . 3 d 9 8 1 , 9 8 4 n . 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

-5- b e f o re h e sta rte d a n a ly z in g th e c o m p u ter . K a n a tza r u se d E n C a se f o re n sic so f

tw a re to exami ne the cont ent s of the comput er ’ s har d dr i ve. T he s oftw ar e al l ow ed hi m di r ect ac ce ss to the h ard d ri v e w ith o u t fi rstd eterm ining w h ethe r a u ser n am e o r pa ssw o rd w ere neede d. H e, ther efor e, di d notdet erm i ne w hetherthe comput erw as pr ot ect ed bya us er name orpas s w or d pr i ort o pr evi ew i ng the comput er ’ s cont ent s . O nl yl at er , w hen he t ook the comput erback t o hi s offi ce f orfur theranal y s i s , di d he s ee RayA ndrus ’ us erpr ofi l e. 1 K anat zart es t i fi ed he us ed EnC as e t o s ear ch for.j pg pi ctur e fi l es . H e expl ai ned that 2 cl i cki ng on the i m ages he r etr i eved a l l ow ed hi m t o s ee the pathname forthe i m age, tr aci ng i tt o part i cul arfol der s on the comput er ’ s har d dr i ve. T hi s pr oces s r evea l ed fol der and fi l e names s ugges t i ve of c hi l d pornogr aphy . K anat zares t i m at ed i tt ook fi ve mi nut es to se e d e p ictio n s o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . A t th a t p o in t, ho w e v e r, C h e a th a m c a m e b a c k in to th e ro o m , told K a n a tza r th a t R a yA n d ru s w a s o n h is w a yh o m e , an d a sk e d K a n a tza r to s t op the s ear ch. K anat zart es t i fi ed he s hutdow n hi s l apt op comput erand w ai t ed i n R ay A n d ru s’ b e d ro o m w ith th e c o m p u ter u n til C h e a th a m c a m e b a c k in to th e ro o m to tell h im A ndrus had per s onal l ycons ent ed t o the s ear ch and K anat zarcoul d cont i nue. C heatham t es t i fi ed he a s ked K anat zart o s t op the comput ers ear ch bec aus e of i nform at i on r evea l ed thr ough hi s cont i nui ng conver s at i on w i th D r . A ndrus . C heathamIt is d isp u ted w h e th e r C h e a th a m to ld A n d ru s d u rin g th is p h o n e c a ll th a t ch ild 3 p o rno g rap h yh ad b ee n fo u n d o n h is co m p u ter. C heatham m ai nt ai ned he di d notm ent i on t o A ndrus thatthe comput ers ear ch w as al r eadyunderw ay , w hi l e A ndrus t es t i fi ed C heatham t ol d hi m dur i ng the phone c al l thatpornogr aphyhad bee n di s cover ed dur i ng a sea rch o f h is co m p u ter. B e c a u se o f th e c o n c lu sio n th a t D r. A n d ru s h a d a p p a re n t au th o rity t o cons entt o a s ear ch of the comput er , w e nee d notanal y ze the vol unt ar i nes s of R ay A ndrus ’ s ubs equentcons entand, ther efor e, need notaddr es s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of thi s fac tual di s put e. -6- expl ai ned he a s ked D r . A ndrus i f ther e w er e othercomput er s i n the hous e and D r . A ndrus rep li ed the c o m p u ter i n R ayA n d rus’ ro o m w as th e o n lyo n e. C h ea tham then ask ed D r. A n d ru s a b o u t th e in ter n e t se rv ice a n d D r. A n d ru s in d ica ted it w a s p a rt o f th e c a b le p a c k a g e . A t th a t p o in t, R a yA n d ru s w a s te lep h o n e d a t h is w o rk p lac e . T h e re is confl i ct i ng evi dence conce r ni ng w hetherD r . A ndrus orC heatham sugges t ed ca l l i ng A ndrus . D r . A ndrus di al ed A ndrus ’ w or k num ber , s poke br i efl yw i th hi s s on, and hande d the phone t o C heatham. A tthe conc l us i on of hi s conver s at i on w i th C heatham, R ay 3 A n d ru s a g re e d to re tu rn to th e A n d ru s re s id e n c e . H e a rr iv e d te n to tw e n ty m in u te s la te r. H e parked hi s cari n t he gar age a nd w as m etbyC heatham, W ool l en, and I C E A gent S m ith , w h o a rr iv e d o n th e s c e n e a f te r t h e a g e n ts ’ i n itia l e n tr yin to th e A n d ru s re s id e n c e . C heatham t es t i fi ed he t ol d A ndrus thatoffi cer s had al r eadybeen i ns i de the r es i dence and had l ooked thr ough hi s r oom . C heatham’s w r i t t en r eportal s o i ndi cat es he t ol d A ndrus he had a c om put ert echni ci an atthe r es i dence and thatD r . A ndrus had cons ent ed t o a s ear ch o f th e h o u se a n d th e c o m p u ter in A n d ru s’ b e d ro o m . C h e a th a m sa id h e th e n v e rb a lly asked A nd rus for consent t o search his room and his com pu t er. A ft er obt ai ning A nd rus’ cons ent , C heatham w entback i ns i de t o author i ze K anat zart o cont i nue hi s s ear ch.18 U . S . C . § 2 55 2(a) (4) (B ) cr i m i nali zes “po sses s[i on of] 1 o r m ore boo ks, 4 m agaz i nes , per i odi cal s , fi l m s , vi deo t apes , orotherm att erw hi ch cont ai n anyvi s ual depi ct i on thathas been mai l ed, orhas been s hi pped ortr ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce, orw hi ch w as pr oduced us i ng m at er i al s w hi ch have been mai l ed ors o s hi pped ortr ans por t ed, byanym eans i ncl udi ng bycomput er , i f— ( i ) the pr oduci ng of s uch vi s ual depi ct i on i nvol ves the us e of a m i norengagi ng i n expl i ci tconduct ; and ( i i ) s uch vi s ual d e p ic tio n is o f

s u c h c o n d u c t.” -7- R ayA ndrus w as i ndi ct ed on one c ountof know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ypos s es s i ng pornogr aphi c i m ages of m i nor s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 4) ( B ) . C l ai m i ng a 4 F o u rth A m e n d m e n t v io latio n , A n d ru s m o v e d to su p p re ss th e e v id e n c e g a th e re d f ro m h is res i den ce and his com pu t er. In the m em orandu m supp ort i ng his m oti on t o sup press , A ndrus ar gued: ( 1) D r . A ndrus ’ cons entw as notvol unt ary ; ( 2) D r . A ndrus l acke d actual author i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch of the comput er , even i f he ha d author i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch of RayA ndrus ’ r oom ; and ( 3) D r . A ndrus coul d notr eas onabl ybe s een a s havi ng a u th o r i ty t o c o n s e n tt o a s e a r c h o f th e c o m p u t e ra n d , th u s , l a c k e d a p p a r e n ta u th o r i ty. T he di s tr i ctcourthel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng atw hi ch D et ect i ve W ool l en, A gent C heatham, A gentK anat zar , A gentSm i th, D r . A ndrus , and R ayA ndrus t es t i fi ed. A tt he concl us i on of the hea r i ng, the courtdet erm i ned D r . A ndrus ’ cons entw as vol unt ary , but co n clud ed D r. A n d rus lac k ed ac tual au tho ri tyto co n sen t t o a c o m p u ter searc h . T h e c o u rt based it s actual autho ri tyrul i ng on i t s fi nd i ng s that D r. A nd rus di d n ot know ho w t o u se th e c o m p u ter , h a d n e v e r u se d th e c o m p u ter , an d d id n o t k n o w th e u se r n a m e th a t w o u ld h av e a ll o w ed h im to ac ce ss the co m p u ter. T he di s tr i ctcourtthen pr ocee ded t o cons i derappar entauthor i ty . I ti ndi cat ed the r es ol ut i on of the appa r entauthor i tycl ai m i n favorof the governm entw as a “c l os e ca l l . ”-8-

T he courtconcl uded the age nt s ’ bel i ef thatD r . A ndrus had author i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch of the comput erw as r eas onabl e up unt i l the t i m e theyl earned ther e w as onl yone comput eri n t he hous e. B eca us e C heatham i ns truct ed K anat zart o s us pend the s ear ch at thatpoi nt , ther e w as no Four th A m endmentvi ol at i on. T he courtbas ed i t s concl us i on t hat D r. A nd rus had ap parentauthori tyon the fo l l ow i ng factual fi nd i ng s: (1) the em ai l add res s bandrus @ kc. r r . com, an addr es s as s oci at ed w i th D r . B ai l eyA ndrus , w as us ed t o r egi s t er w i th R egpayand pr ocur e chi l d pornogr aphy ; ( 2) D r . A ndrus t ol d the age nt s he pai d the hous ehol d’ s i nt ernetacc es s bi l l ; ( 3) the age nt s knew s ever al i ndi vi dual s l i ved i n the h o u se h o ld ; (4 ) R a yA n d ru s’ b e d ro o m d o o r w a s n o t lo c k e d , lea d in g a re a so n a b le o f f ice r to bel i eve otherm ember s of the hous ehol d coul d have ha d acc es s t o i t ; and ( 5) the comput er i t s el f w as i n pl ai n vi ew of any one w ho ent er ed the r oom and i tappea r ed ava i l abl e for an y o n e’s u se. Im p li citin the d istri ct co u rt ’s an aly sis w as th e a ssu m p ti o n that the o ff icers c o u ld re a so n a b lyh a v e b e liev e d D r. A n d ru s a c c e ss e d th e in ter n e t th ro u g h th e c o m p u ter in R ayA ndrus ’ bedr oom , ther ebygi vi ng D r . A ndrus the author i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch of the c o m p u ter. L a stly , the c o u rt c o n c lu d e d R a yA n d ru s’ la ter c o n se n t to se a rc h h is c o m p u ter a n d h is admi s s i ons r egar di ng addi t i onal evi dence w er e know i ng and vol unt ary . I tfound the a g e n ts h a d e x p lain e d th e yw e re in v e stig a tin g v io latio n s o f f e d e ra l law re g a rd in g c h ild pornogr aphy , advi s ed A ndrus of the ci r cumst ance s fac i ng hi m , and t ol d hi m he w as not underarr es tand w as fr ee t o go atanyt i m e. T he courtfur therfound thatA ndrus t ol d the agent s he w ant ed t o cl earup the mat t erand gave cons entt o s ear ch hi s comput er . B as ed-9-

on thes e fa ctual fi ndi ngs , the courtconcl uded A ndrus ’ cons entw as gi ven know i ngl yand vo l un t ari l y . T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed A nd rus’ m oti on t o sup press . O n appea l , A ndrus cont es t s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appar entauthor i tyrul i ng. H e cont ends thatambi gui t i es i n t he s i tuat i on fac i ng the off i cer s atthe A ndrus r es i dence r equi r ed the offi cer s t o as k fur therques t i ons conce rni ng D r . A ndrus ’ author i tyt o cons entt o a c o m p u te r s e a rc h p ri o r t o c o m m e n c in g th e s e a rc h . See U ni t ed Stat es v. K i m oana , 383 F .3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A n d ru s a lso a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t h is o w n c o n se n t, gi ven af t erthe al l egedl yi l l egal comput ers ear ch y i el ded i ncul pat oryevi dence , di d not cur e the al l eged i l l egal i tybeca us e the ea r l i ers ear ch and hi s l at ercons entw er e not s u f f ic ie n tly a tte n u a te d . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Me len d ez-G a rc ia , 28 F. 3d 1046, 1053–54 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Forthe r eas ons expl ai ned bel ow , thi s courtconcl udes D r . A ndrus had appa r ent author i tyt o cons entt o t he comput ers ear ch. B eca us e ther e w as , ther efor e, no cons t i tut i onal t ai ntas s oci at ed w i th the i ni t i al s ear ch and be caus e R ayA ndrus does not dr aw a di s t i nct i on betw een e vi dence s ei zed dur i ng the i ni t i al s ear ch and e vi dence s ei zed aft erhe arr i ved home, the val i di tyof A ndrus ’ s ubs equentcons entneed notbe addr es s ed.

I I I . D i s cus s i on A . St andar d of R evi ew W h en rev iew ing a d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f a m o ti o n to su p p ress, th is co u rtco n side rs the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s and vi ew s the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the-10-

g o v e rn m e n t. K i m oana , 383 F. 3d at1220. W e ac ceptthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs u n le s s th e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . I d. C ons i der at i on of w i tnes s cr edi bi l i ty , the w ei ght gi ven t o evi dence , and r eas onabl e i nfer ence s dr aw n fr om evi dence ar e w i thi n the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s p ro v in c e a s th e f a c t- f in d e r. Id . I s s ues of l aw , how ever , s uch as det erm i nat i ons of r eas onabl enes s underthe Four th A m endmentand the val i di tyof cons ent , ar e r evi ew ed de novo . U n itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 9 5 2 , 9 6 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R ith , 1 6 4 F . 3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 2 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). B . C ons entSear ches U nderthe Four th A m endment Subj ectt o l i m i t ed exc ept i ons , the Four th A m endmentpr ohi bi t s w arr ant l es s s ear ches o f a n in d iv id u a l’ s h o m e o r p o s s e s s io n s . I l l i nois v. R odr iguez , 4 9 7 U .S . 1 7 7 , 1 8 1 (1 9 9 0 ). V o l u n t a ry c o n s e n tt o a p o l i c e s e a r c h , g i v e n b y th e i n d i v i d u a l u n d e ri n v e s t i g a t i o n o rb y a thi r d partyw i th author i tyoverthe s ubj ectpr operty , i s a w el l - es t abl i s hed exc ept i on t o t he w a rr a n t r e q u ir e m e n t. R ith , 164 F. 3d at1328. V al i d thi r d partycons entcan a r i s e ei ther thro u g h the th ir d p arty ’s ac tual au tho ri tyo r th e third p arty ’s ap p are n t auth o ri ty . A thir d partyhas actual author i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch “i f thatthi r d partyhas ei ther( 1) m utual us e of the pr opertybyvi r tue of j oi ntacc es s , or( 2) contr ol form os tpurpos es . ” Id . at 1329 ; s ee als o U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

at l ock , 415 U . S. 164, 171 ( 1974) ( hol di ng “comm on author i tyoverorot hers uffi ci entr el at i ons hi p t o the pr emi s es oreff ect s s oughtt o be i ns pect ed” maygi ve r i s e t o a thi r d party ’ s val i d cons entt o s ear ch) . E ven w her e ac tual author i tyi s l acki ng, how ever , a thi r d partyhas appar entauthor i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch w hen an of

fi cerr eas onabl y , even i f err oneous l y , bel i eves the thi r d partypos s es s es-11-

a u th o ri ty to c o n s e n t. See G eor gi a v. R andol

ph , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 5 1 5 , 1 5 2 0 (20 0 6 ). W hetherappar entauthor i tyexi s t s i s an obj ect i ve, t ot al i ty - of- the- ci r cumst ance s i nqui ryi nt o w hetherthe fa ct s avai l abl e t o the off i cer s atthe t i m e theycomm ence d the s ear ch w oul d l ead a r eas onabl e off i cert o bel i eve the thi r d partyhad author i tyt o cons ent to th e s e a rc h . See Rodri guez , 497 U . S. at188; K i m oana , 383 F. 3d at1222 ( “[W ] her e an o f f ice r is p re se n ted w ith a m b ig u o u s f a c ts re late d to a u th o rity , h e o r sh e h a s a d u tyto in v e stig a te f

u rth e r b e f

o re re ly in g o n th e c o n se n t.”). W h e n th e p ro p e rtyto b e se a rc h e d is a n o b jec t o r c o n tain e r, th e re lev a n t in q u irym u st a d d re ss th e th ird p a rty ’s r e latio n sh ip to th e o b je c t. Mat l ock , 415 U . S. at171. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s m os tr ece ntpr onouncement on thi r d partycons ents ear ches under s cor es thatr eas onabl enes s cal cul at i ons m us tbe m a d e in th e c o n te x t o f

s o c ia l e x p e c ta tio n s a b o u t th e p a rt ic u la r i te m to b e s e a rc h e d . R andol ph , 126 S. C t . at1521. I n R andol ph , the C our texpl ai ned, “The cons t antel ement i n as s es s i ng Four th A m endmentr eas onabl enes s i n cons entcas es . . . i s the gr eat s i gni fi canc e gi ven t o w i del ys har ed s oci al expec t at i ons . ” I d. F o r ex am p le, the C o u rt sa id , “[ W ]h e n it co m e s to se a rc h in g th ro u g h b u re a u d ra w e rs, th e re w ill b e in sta n c e s in w hi ch eve n a per s on cl ear l ybel ongi ng on the pr emi s es as an occ upantm ayl ack a ny per cei ved author i tyt o cons ent . ” I d. a t 1 5 2 2 . O b jects typ icall yasso ciated w ith h igh ex p ec tat ion s o f p ri v ac yinclu d e “ m an k ind ’s val i s es , s ui t cas es , foot l ocker s , [and] s tr ong boxes . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B l ock , 590 F. 2d 535, 5 4 1 (4 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ); s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Sal i nas - C ano , 9 5 9 F . 2 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (c o n tra stin g a su itca se , in w h ich d e f e n d a n t h a d a h ig h e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y , w ith-12-

a ca r dboar d box, cas s ett e t ape, orpl as t i c bucke t , w i th w hi ch l es s erexpec t at i ons of p ri v ac yare asso ciated ). Itm ayb e u n rea so n ab le fo r l aw en fo rce m en t t o b eli ev e a thir d partyhas author i tyt o cons entt o t he s ear ch of a n obj ecttypi cal l yas s oci at ed w i th a hi gh expec t at i on of pr i vacy , es peci al l yw hen the off i cer s know ors houl d know the ow nerhas i ndi cat ed the i nt entt o excl ude the thi r d partyfr om us i ng orexert i ng contr ol overthe o b je c t. See Sal i nas - C ano , 959 F. 2d at865–66 ( det erm i ni ng offi cer s ’ bel i ef i n apart m ent o w n ers’ au tho ri tyto co n sen t t o sea rch o f d ef en d an t’ s su it ca se to b e u n rea so n ab le w h ere p o lic e f a ile d to in q u ir e in to a p a rt m e n t o w n e r’ s u s e o f o r c o n tr o l o v e r t h e s u itc a s e ). T hi s courthas notpr evi ous l ycons i der ed expe ct at i ons of pr i vacyas s oci at ed w i th a hom e comput eri n a thi r d partycons ents i tuat i on. T enth C i r cui tpr ece dentthus farhas deal tonl yw i th comput ers ear ches w her e pol i ce ha ve a w arr antorotherj us t i fi cat i on for se a rc h in g th e c o m p u ter , o r w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t co m p u ter o w n e r h im se lf h a s c o n se n ted to th e s e a rc h . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. B r ooks , 427 F. 3d 1246, 1249–53 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (co n clud ing d ef

en d an t’ s co n sen t t o sea rch o f h is co m p u ter au tho ri ze d law en fo rce m en t’ s se a rc h ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tucker , 3 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c o n c lu d in g p a ro le se a rc h o f d e f e n d a n t’s c o m p u ter w a s p e rm itt e d b yth e p lain lan g u a g e o f d e f e n d a n t’s p a ro le a g re e m e n t); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ar ey , 172 F. 3d 1268, 1276 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( det erm i ni ng offi cerexce eded s cope of w arr antauthor i zi ng comput ers ear ch forevi dence of drug crim es w h en o ff

icer fo u n d an d co n ti n u ed to se arc h fo r ch il d p o rno g rap h yo n d ef en d an t’ s comput er ) . O thercourt s have, how ever , anal y zed thi r d partyauthor i tyt o cons entt o t he s ear ch of a hom e comput er , focus i ng on the appl i cat i on of Four th A m endmentpr i nci pl es-13-

i n thi s s peci al cas e w her e i ti s uncl earfr om a vi s ual i ns pect i on of the out s i de of the comput erw hetherthe comput er ’ s ow nerhas m ani fes t ed a s ubj ect i ve expe ct at i on of p ri v a c yin th e c o m p u te r o r i ts d a ta . 1. A na l og izi ngC om

pu t ers to O ther T

ypes of C on tainers Co u r t s c o n s i d e r i n g th e i s s u e h a v e a t t e mp t e d t o a n a l o g i z e c o mp u t e r s t o o th e ri t e ms m or e comm onl ys een i n Four th A m endmentj ur i s prudence . I ndi vi dual s ’ expec t at i ons of pr i vacyi n comput er s have be en l i kened t o thei rexpec t at i ons of pr i vacyi n “a s ui t cas e or br i efc as e. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. A ar on , 3 3 F . A p p ' x 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). Pas s w or d- pr ot ect ed fi l es have be en compar ed t o a “l ocked f oot l ockeri ns i de the b e d ro o m .” Trulock v . Fr eeh , 2 7 5 F .3 d 3 9 1 , 4 0 3 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). G i ven the pervas i venes s of comput er s i n A m er i can homes , thi s courtm us tr eac h s o m e , a t le a s t te n ta tiv e , c o n c lu s io n a b o u t th e c a te g o ry in to w h ic h p e rs o n a l c o m p u te rs f a ll. A per s onal comput eri s oft en a r epos i t oryforpr i vat e i nform at i on the comput er ’ s ow ner d o e s n o t in te n d to s h a re w ith o th e rs . [ F ]o r m o st p e o p le, th e ir c o m p u ter s a re th e ir m o st p riv a te s p a c e s. P e o p le c o m m o n ly t al k aboutthe bedr oom as a verypr i vat e s pace , y etw hen theyhave pa r t i es , al l the g u e s ts

— in c lu d in g p e rf

e c t s tr a n g e rs — a re in v ite d to to s s th e irc o a ts o n th e b e d . B u t if o n e o f

th o se g u e sts is c a u g h t ex p lo rin g th e h o st’s c o m p u ter , tha t w ill b e h is la s t in v ita tio n . U ni t ed Stat es v. G our de , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 7 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( K le in f e ld , J ., d is s e n tin g ). S e e g e n e ra lly O ri n S . K e rr , S e a rc h e s a n d S e izu re s in a D ig ita l W o rld , 119 H arv. L . R ev. 531, 569 ( 2005) ( “[C]omput er s ar e pl ay i ng an eve rgr eat err ol e i n dai l yl i fe and are r ecordi ng a grow i ng propo rt i on of it. . . . [T ]heyare post al services , play groun ds,-14-

j ukeboxes , dat i ng s ervi ces , m ovi e theat er s , dai l ypl anner s , s hoppi ng m al l s , per s onal s ecr et ar i es , vi r tual di ar i es , and more . . . . E ach ne w s oftw ar e appl i cat i on m eans another a sp e c t o f o u r liv e s m o n ito re d a n d re c o rd e d b yo u r c o m p u ter s.” ). B e c a u se in tim a te in f o rm a tio n is c o m m o n lysto re d o n c o m p u ter s, it se e m s n a tu ra l th a t co m p u ter s s h o u ld f a ll i nt o the s ame cat egoryas s ui t cas es , foot l ocker s , orotherper s onal i t ems that“comm and[] a hi gh degr ee of

pr i vacy . ” Sal i nas - C ano , 959 F. 2d at864. 2 . Ma n ifes ta tio n s o

f E x p e c ta tio n s o

f P riv a c y in C o m p u terD a ta T he i nqui r yi nt o w hetherthe ow nerof a hi ghl yper s onal obj ecthas i ndi cat ed a s ubj ect i ve expe ct at i on of pr i vacytr adi t i onal l yfocus es on w hetherthe s ubj ects ui t cas e, f o o tlo c k e r, o r o th e r c o n ta in e r i s p h y s ic a lly lo c k e d . See, e. g. , B l ock , 590 F. 2d at537 ( hol di ng m otherl acke d author i tyt o cons entt o s ear ch of s on’ s foot l ockerw her e “[ t ] he trunk w as fas t ened s hutbys om e means thati ndi cat ed t o the off i cer s thati tw as l ocked and thata keyw as r equi r ed t o open i t . ”) . D et erm i ni ng w hethera comput eri s “l ocked, ” or w hethera r eas onabl e off i cers houl d know a comput erm aybe l ocked, pr es ent s a cha l l enge di s t i nctfr om thatas s oci at ed w i th othertypes of cl os ed cont ai ner s . U nl i ke foot l ocker s or s ui t cas es , w her e the pr es ence of a l ocki ng devi ce i s gener al l yappar entbyl ooki ng att he i t em, a “l ock” on the dat a w i thi n a comput eri s notappar entfr om a vi s ual i ns pect i on of th e o u tsid e o f

th e c o m p u ter , es p e c iallyw h e n th e c o m p u teris in th e “ o f f ” p o sitio n p rio r to the s ear ch. D at a on an e nt i r e comput erm aybe pr ot ect ed bya pas s w or d, w i th the pas s w or d funct i oni ng as a l ock, orther e maybe mul t i pl e us er s of a c om put er , eac h of w hom has an i ndi vi dual and per s onal i zed pa s s w or d- pr ot ect ed “us erpr ofi l e. ” See O x fo rdT he di ffi cul tyw i th s eei ng a “l ock” on c om put erdat a i s exac erbat ed bythe 5 f o re n s ic s o f

tw a re s o m e tim e s u s e d b yla w e n f o rc e m e n t to c o n d u c t c o m p u te r s e a rc h e s . T he s oftw ar e, l i ke the EnC as e s oftw ar e us ed byA gentK anat zar , al l ow s us erpr ofi l es and p a s s w o rd p ro te c tio n to b e b yp a s s e d . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. B uckne r , 473 F. 3d 551, 553 ( 4th C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng governm ent ’ s evi dence w as thatfor ens i c s oftw ar e “w oul d not n e c e s s a ri ly d e te c t u s e r p a s s w o rd s ” o n p a s s w o rd -p ro te c te d c o m p u te r f ile s ). -15- E n g li sh D ict ion aryO n li n e, http ://dicti o n ary . o ed . co m (l ast v isi ted D ec . 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) (en try for“Pas s w or d, ” def

i ni t i on 1. b. : defi ni ng “pas s w or d” i n the comput i ng cont extas “[a ] se q u e n c e o f

c h a ra c ter s, k n o w n o n lyto a u th o riz e d p e rso n s, w h ich m u st b e k e y e d in to g a in acc es s t o a part i cul arcomput er , netw or k, fi l e, funct i on, et c. ”) . T he pr es ence of a pas s w or d thatl i m i t s acc es s t o t he comput er ’ s cont ent s m ayonl ybe di s cover ed bys t art i ng up the machi ne oratt empt i ng t o acc es s part i cul arfi l es on the comput eras a norm al us er w oul d. 5 C ou rt s addressi ng the is sue of thir d p artycon senti n the con t ext of com pu t ers , ther efor e, have e xami ned off i cer s ’ know l edge a boutpas s w or d pr ot ect i on as an i ndi cat i on o f w h e th e r a c o m p u ter is “ lo c k e d ” in th e w a ya f o o tlo c k e r w o u ld b e . F o r e x a m p le, in Trulock , the Four th C i r cui thel d a l i ve- i n gi r l fr i end l acke d actual author i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch of he rboy fr i end’ s comput erfi l es w her e the gi r l fr i end t ol d pol i ce s he and he r boy fr i end s har ed the hous ehol d comput erbuthad s epar at e pas s w or d- pr ot ect ed fi l es that w er e i nacc es s i bl e t o t he other . 275 F. 3d at398, 403. T he courti n thatcas e expl ai ned, “A l though C onr ad had a uthor i tyt o cons entt o a gene r al s ear ch of the comput er , her author i tydi d notext end t o T rul ock’ s pas s w or d- pr ot ect ed fi l es . ” Id . at403. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor

gan , the Si xth C i r cui tvi ew ed a w i fe’ s s t at ementt o pol i ce thats he and he r-16-

hus band di d nothave i ndi vi dual us ernames orpas s w or ds as a fa ct orw ei ghi ng i n favorof the w i fe’ s appar entauthor i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch of the hus band’ s comput er . 435 F. 3d 6 6 0 , 6 6 3 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A ccord A ar on , 3 3 F . A p p ' x a t 1 8 4 (d e ter m in in g liv e -in gi r l fr i end coul d gi ve val i d cons entfors ear ch of de fenda nt ’ s comput erbeca us e def endant h ad n o t fo rbid d en h er f

rom u sing co m p u ter or “re str ict ed h er a cc ess w ith p assw o rd pr ot ect i ons ”) . A c ritica l issu e in a ss e ss in g a th ird p a rty ’s a p p a re n t au th o rityto c o n se n t to th e se a rc h o f

a h o m e c o m p u ter , the re f o re , is w h e th e r la w e n f

o rc e m e n t k n o w s o r sh o u ld rea so n ab lysu sp ec t bec au se o f su rrou n d ing circu m stan ce s tha t th e c o m p u ter i s p assw o rd pr ot ect ed. 3. A ddi t i onalFactors B ear i ng on Thi r d P ar t y C ons ent

f orC om put erSear ch I n addi t i on t o pas s w or d pr ot ect i on, court s al s o cons i derthe l ocat i on of the comput er w ith in th e h o u se a n d o th e r in d icia o f h o u se h o ld m e m b e rs’ a c c e ss to th e c o m p u ter in as s es s i ng thi r d partyauthor i ty . T hi r d partyappar entauthor i tyt o cons entt o a s ear ch has g e n e ra llyb e e n u p h e ld w h e n th e c o m p u ter is lo c a ted in a c o m m o n a re a o f th e h o m e th a t is a c c e ss ib le to o th e r f

a m ilym e m b e rs u n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s in d ica tin g th e o th e r f a m ily m e m b e rs w e re n o t e x c lu d e d f ro m u s in g th e c o m p u te r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B uckne r , 473 F. 3d 551, 555–56 ( 4th C i r . 2007) ( det erm i ni ng w i fe’ s cons entw as val i d w her e w i fe lea se d c o m p u ter in h e r n a m e , w if e o c c a sio n a llyu se d c o m p u ter , co m p u ter w a s f o u n d in l i vi ng r oom , and fr audul entact i vi tyhad bee n conduct ed fr om thatcomput erus i ng a c c o u n ts o p e n e d in w if e ’s n a m e ); Mor

gan , 435 F. 3d at663–64 ( concl udi ng w i fe ha d a p p a re n t au th o rityb e c a u se sh e in iti a ted c o n tac t w ith p o lice , co m p u ter w a s lo c a ted in-17-

comm on ar ea of

the hous e, and w i fe t ol d pol i ce s he had us ed comput er , s he and hus band d id n o t hav e u sern am es o r pa ssw o rds, an d sh e h ad install ed so ftw are o n the c o m p u ter); U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 2 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 6 (C .D . Ill . 1 9 9 8 ) (c o n c lu d in g liv e -in gi r l fr i end had a ctual and appa r entauthor i tyt o cons entt o s ear ch of de fenda nt ’ s comput er beca us e gi r l fr i end gave pol i ce pe r m i s s i on t o ent erhous e and s ear ch comput erand c o m p u ter a n d d e sk w e re in c o m m o n a re a a n d su rro u n d e d b yc h ild re n ’s to y s). In c o n tra st, w her e the thi r d partyhas aff i r m at i vel ydi s cl ai m ed ac ces s t o orcontr ol overthe comput er ora por t i on of the comput er ’ s fi l es , even w hen the comput eri s l ocat ed i n a comm on ar ea o f th e h o u s e , c o u rt s h a v e b e e n u n w illin g to f in d th ir d p a rt ya u th o ri ty. Trulock , 275 F. 3d a t 4 0 3 . C . D r . A ndrus ’ A ppar entA uthor i tyt o C ons entt o a Sear ch of RayA ndrus ’ C om put er A nd rus’ case present s fact s that di ffer som ew hat fr om tho se i n o ther cases. A nd rus’ comput erw as l ocat ed i n a bedr oom occupi ed bythe homeow ner ’ s fi fty - one y earol d s on ra th e r t h a n in a tru e c o m m o n a re a . C f . Mor gan , 4 3 5 F . 3 d at 66 2 (co m p u ter i n b ase m en t) ; Sm ith , 2 7 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 1 1 3 (c o m p u ter in jo in t b e d ro o m o f g irlfr ien d a n d d e f

e n d a n t, s u rr o u n d e d b yc h ild re n ’s to y s ). D r. A n d ru s , h o w e v e r, h a d u n lim ite d a c c e s s to th e ro o m . L aw enfor cementoffi cer s di d notas k s peci fi c ques t i ons aboutD r . A ndrus ’ us e of the c o m p u te r, b u t D r. A n d ru s s a id n o th in g in d ic a tin g th e n e e d f o r s u c h q u e s tio n s . C

f. Trulock , 275 F. 3d at398 ( w hen l aw enfor cementques t i oned thi r d partygi r l fr i end about comput er , s he i ndi cat ed s he and boy fr i end had s epar at e pas s w or d- pr ot ect ed fi l es ) . T he r es ol ut i on of thi s appea l turns on w hetherthe off i cer s ’ bel i ef i n D r . A ndrus ’ author i tyw asA l t hough t he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notm ake a nyfac tual fi ndi ngs as t o w hetherthe 6 comput erw as pas s w or d pr ot ect ed, ther e i s evi dence i n the r ecor d s ugges t i ng the pr es ence o f a p a s s w o rd . See sup ra not e 1. D et erm i ni ng w hethera pas s w or d w as actual l yi n pl ace , h o w ev er, i s u n n ec essa ryfo r an aly zing D r. A n d rus’ a p p are n t auth o ri ty , sinc e the p assw o rd w oul d nothave be en obvi ous t o t he off i cer s atthe t i m e theyobt ai ned cons entand comm ence d the s ear ch. -18- r eas onabl e, des pi t e the l ack of anyaff i r m at i ve as s ert i on byD r . A ndrus thathe us ed the c o m p u ter a n d d e sp ite th e e x iste n c e o f a u se r p ro f

ile in d ica tin g R a yA n d ru s’ in ten t to excl ude otherhous ehol d m ember s fr om us i ng the comput er . Forthe r eas ons art i cul at ed 6 bel ow , thi s courtconcl udes the off i cer s ’ bel i ef i n D r . A ndrus ’ author i tyw as r eas onabl e. T he cr i t i cal i s s ue i n ouranal y s i s i s w hether , underthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s know n t o C heatham, W ool l en, and K anat zar , thes e off i cer s coul d r eas onabl yhave b e lie v e d D r. A n d ru s h a d a u th o ri ty to c o n s e n t to a s e a rc h o f th e c o m p u te r. See Ki m oana , 383 F. 3d at1223. Phr as ed i n t he nega t i ve, w e mustas k “w hetherthe s urr oundi ng circu m stan ce s co u ld co n ce ivab lyb e su ch that a re aso n ab le pe rson w o u ld d o u b t [D r. A ndrus ’ cons ent ] and notactupon i tw i thoutfur theri nqui ry . ” R odr iguez , 497 U . S. at 188. I f the ci r cumst ance s r eas onabl yi ndi cat ed D r . A ndrus had mut ual us e of orcontr ol o v e r t h e c o m p u te r, t h e o f f ic e rs w e re u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n to a s k c la ri f y in g q u e s tio n s , c

f. K i m oana , 383 F. 3d at1222, even i f, as the di s s entnot es , the bur den w oul d have be en m i ni m al i n t hi s part i cul arcas e. T hi s courtm us tacc eptthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the di s tr i ctcourtunl es s thos e fi ndi ngs a re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Id . a t 1 2 2 0 . W e , the re f o re , ac c e p t th e f

o llo w in g f

a c ts a s tru e : F irst, th e o f

f ice rs k n e w D r. A n d ru s o w n e d th e h o u se a n d liv e d th e re w ith f a m ilyT he di s tr i ctcourtr ecogni zed a confl i cti n the t es t i m onyof D r . A ndrus and 7 C heatham as t o w hetherD r . A ndrus t ol d C heatham he di d notknow how t o us e the comput erpr i ort o C heatham aski ng forD r . A ndrus ’ cons ent . T aki ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm entand def err i ng t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s eval uat i on of w itn e s s c re d ib ility a s w e m u s t, U ni t ed Stat es v. K i m oana , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), w e to o c re d it th e o f f ic e rs ’ v e rs io n . -19- m em b ers. Se co n d , the o ff icers k n ew D r. A n d rus’ h o u se h ad interne t acc ess a n d that D r. A n d ru s p a id th e T im e W a rn e r in ter n e t an d c a b le b ill . T h ird , the o f f ice rs k n e w th e e m a il addr es s bandrus @ kc. r r . com had been ac t i vat ed and us ed t o r egi s t eron a w ebs i t e that p r o v i d e d a c c e s s t o c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y. Four th, al though the off i cer s knew R ayA ndrus l i ved i n the ce nt erbedr oom , theyal s o knew thatD r . A ndrus had ac ces s t o the r oom at w i l l . Fi fth, the off

i cer s s aw the comput eri n pl ai n vi ew on the des k i n A ndrus ’ r oom and itap p ea red av ail ab le fo r use b yo ther h o u seh o ld m em b ers. Fu rth erm o re, th e re co rd i ndi cat es D r . A ndrus di d nots ayordo anythi ng t o i ndi cat e hi s l ack of ow ner s hi p or contr ol overthe comput erw hen C heatham aske d forhi s cons entt o conducta comput er s ear ch. I ti s uncont es t ed thatD r . A ndrus l ed the off i cer s t o the bedr oom i n w hi ch the 7 co m p u ter w as lo ca ted, an d , ev en af ter he saw K an atza r be g in to w o rk o n the c o m p u ter, D r. A n d ru s re m a in e d sile n t ab o u t an ylac k o f a u th o rityh e h a d o v e r th e c o m p u ter . E v e n if R ayA ndrus ’ comput erw as pr ot ect ed w i th a us ername and pas s w or d, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hatthe off i cer s knew orhad r eas on t o bel i eve s uch pr ot ect i ons w e re in p la c e . A ndrus ar gues hi s comput er ’ s pas s w or d pr ot ect i on i ndi cat ed hi s comput erw as “l ocked” t o t hi r d part i es , a fa ctthe off i cer s w oul d have know n had theyas ked ques t i ons-20-

o f D r. A n d rus p ri o r t o sea rch ing the c o m p u ter. U n d er o u r ca se law , h o w ev er, of fice rs are n o t o b lig a te d to a s k q u e s tio n s u n le s s th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s a re a m b ig u o u s . K i m oana , 383 F. 3d at1222. I n es s ence , bys ugges t i ng the onus w as on the off i cer s t o as k about pas s w or d pr ot ect i on pr i ort o s ear chi ng the comput er , des pi t e the abs ence of any i ndi cat i on thatD r . A ndrus ’ acc es s t o the comput erw as l i m i t ed bya pas s w or d, A ndrus nece s s ar i l ys ubm i t s ther e i s i nher entambi gui tyw heneve rpol i ce w antt o a s ear ch a hous ehol d comput erand a thi r d partyhas notaff i r m at i vel ypr ovi ded i nform at i on about hi s ow n us e of the comput eroraboutpas s w or d pr ot ect i on. A ndrus ’ ar gum ent p re su p p o se s, h o w e v e r, th a t p a ss w o rd p ro tec tio n o f h o m e c o m p u ter s is so c o m m o n th a t a r eas onabl e off

i ceroughtt o know pas s w or d pr ot ect i on i s l i kel y . A ndrus has nei therm ade thi s ar gum entdi r ect l ynorpr offe r ed anyevi dence t o demonstr at e a hi gh i nci dence of p a ss w o rd p ro tec tio n a m o n g h o m e c o m p u ter u se rs. T h e d iss e n t, ho w e v e r, is c ritica l o f th is c o u rt b e c a u se it n e ith e r m a k e s th e a rg u m e n t f o r A n d ru s n o r su p p lies th e e v id e n c e to s uppor tthe ar gum ent . T he keyas pectof the di s s enti s i t s cr i t i ci s m of the maj or i tyfor r efus i ng t o “t ake j udi ci al not i ce thatpas s w or d pr ot ect i on i s a s t andar d fea tur e of ope r at i ng s y s t ems. ” P osta t 2 . A ju d icia llyn o tice d f a c t is “ o n e n o t su b

jec t to re a so n a b le d isp u te in thati ti s ei ther( 1) gener al l yknow n . . . or( 2) capa bl e of a ccur at e and r eadydet erm i nat i on byr es or tt o s our ces w hos e ac cur acycannotr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. ” Fed. R . E vi d. 201( b) . A l though j udi ci al not i ce maybe t aken su a sp o n te , F e d . R . E v id . 2 0 1 (c ), itw o u ld be part i cul ar l yi nappr opr i at e forthe courtt o w anderundi r ect ed i n s ear ch of e vi dence i rr efut abl yes t abl i s hi ng the fa ct s nece s s aryt o s uppor tthe di s s ent ’ s concl us i on r egar di ngI f the fa ctual bas i s w er e pr ovi ded, l aw enfor cement ’ s us e of f or ens i c s oftw ar e l i ke 8 E nC as e, w hi ch overr i des anypas s w or d pr ot ect i on w i thouteveri ndi cat i ng w hethers uch pr ot ect i on exi s t s , m ayw el l be s ubj ectt o ques t i on. T hi s , how ever , i s notthatcas e. -21- the a b sen ce o f a p p are n t auth o ri ty : nam ely , that (a) p assw o rd p rotec ti o n is a stand ard fea tur e of mostoper at i ng s y s t ems, ( b) m os tus er s act i vat e the s t andar d pas s w or dp ro tec tio n f

e a tu re , an d (c ) th e se a re m a tters o f su c h c o m m o n k n o w led g e th a t a r e a so n a b le offi cerw oul d m ake f

ur theri nqui r y . I n r ej ect i ng thi s chal l enge, the courtnot es the di s s ent its e lf d id n o t ta k e u p th e s e a rc h f o r f a c ts th a t w o u ld m e e t th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 2 0 1 (b ). W i thouta fa ctual bas i s on w hi ch t o pr ocee d, w e ar e unabl e t o addr es s the pos s i bi l i tyt hat passw ords cr eat e i nh erentam bigui t i es. 8 V iew e d u n d e r th e re q u isite to tality -o f -th e -c irc u m sta n c e s a n a ly sis , the f a c ts k n o w n to th e o f f ice rs a t th e tim e th e c o m p u ter se a rc h c o m m e n c e d c re a ted a n o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le p e rc e p tio n th a t D r. A n d ru s w a s , a t le a s t, one u se r o f th e c o m p u ter . T h a t o b

jec tiv e ly re a so n a b le b e lief

w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n o u g h to g iv e D r. A n d ru s a p p a re n t au th o rityto c o n s e n t to a s e a rc h . S e e id . a t 1 2 2 2 ; cf . U ni t ed Stat es v. D ur ham , N o. 98- 10051- 02, 1998 W L 684241, at*3–4 ( D . K an. Sept . 11, 1998) ( unpubl i s hed) ( hol di ng m otherl acke d ac tual an d ap p are n t auth o ri tyto co n sen t t o sea rch o f c o m p u ter i n so n ’s roo m w h ere o f f ice rs k n e w ro o m w a s lo c k e d a n d m o th e r c o u ld n o t p ro d u c e th e c o rre c t k e y ). E v e n if D r. A n d rus h ad n o ac tual ab il ityto u se th e c o m p u ter an d the c o m p u ter w as p assw o rd pr ot ect ed, thes e mi s t akes of fa ctdo notnegat e a de t erm i nat i on of D r . A ndrus ’ appar ent a u th o ri ty. See Rodri

guez , 4 9 7 U .S . at 1 8 5 ; Sal i nas - C ano , 9 5 9 F . 2 d at 86 5

– 6 6 . A n yafteracqui r ed fa ctual know l edge that“mi ghtunderm i ne the i ni t i al r eas onabl e conc l us i on of-22-

thi r d- partyappar entauthor i ty[i s ] gener al l yi m m at er i al . ” Mor gan , 4 3 5 F . 3 d at 66 4 . In thi s cas e, the di s tr i ctcourtfound A gentC heatham prope r l yhal t ed the s ear ch w hen further con versat i on w i th D r. A nd rus r evealed he d i d n ot use the co m pu t er and t hat A nd rus’ comput erw as the onl ycomput eri n the hous e. T hes e l at err evel at i ons , how ever , have no bear i ng on the r eas onabl enes s of the off i cer s ’ bel i ef i n D r . A ndrus ’ author i tyatthe out s et of the comput ers ear ch.

I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th is c o u rt c o n c lu d e s D r. A n d ru s h a d a p p a re n t au th o rityto cons entt o a s ear ch of the comput eri n R ayA ndrus ’ bedr oom . A ndrus ’ ar gum ent s r el at ed t o th e v a l i d i tyo f

h i s s u b s e q u e n tc o n s e n t , th e r e f o r e , n e e d n o tb e a d d r e s s e d . We a c c o r d i n g l y af

f i rm the d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of A nd rus’ m oti on t o sup press .T hi s s cena r i o appea r s t o pr es enti t s el f i nfr equent l y , l i kel ybeca us e the maj or i tyof 1 c o m p u ter se a rc h e s o c c u r p u rsu a n t to a se a rc h w a rra n t. 0 6 -3 0 9 4 , U

ni t ed Stat es v. A ndr us M c KAY , C ir c u it J u d g e , dis s ent i ng . T hi s cas e conc erns the r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyas s oci at ed w i th pas s w or dp ro tec ted c o m p u ter s. In e x a m in in g th e c o n to u rs o f a th ird p a rty ’s a p p a re n t au th o rityto cons entt o t he s ear ch of a hom e comput er , the maj or i tycorr ect l yi ndi cat es thatthe ext ent to w h ich law e n f

o rc e m e n t k n o w s o r sh o u ld re a so n a b lysu sp e c t th a t p a ss w o rd p ro tec tio n is en ab led is crit ical. W e d iffe r, h o w ev er, ov er the ex tent to w h ich th e b u rde n o f in q u iry s houl d r es tw i th l aw enfor cementper s onnel . M or e s peci fi cal l y , I t ake i s s ue w i th the m aj or i ty ’ s i m pl i ci thol di ng thatl aw enfor cementm ayus e s oftw ar e del i ber at el ydes i gned t o aut om at i cal l ybypas s comput erpas s w or d pr ot ect i on bas ed on thi r d- partycons ent w ith o u t th e n ee d to m ak e a rea so n ab le i n q u iryreg ard ing the p rese n ce o f p assw o rd p ro te c tio n a n d th e th ir d p a rt y ’s a c c e s s to th a t p a s s w o rd . G iv e n th e m a

jo rity ’s c o rre c t d e c isio n to c a teg o riz e c o m p u ter s a s c o n tain e rs, w ith a ll th e a tten d a n t p ro tec tio n s a f f o rd e d u n d e r th e c a se law , w h e th e r a c o m p u ter se a rc h is o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le d e p e n d s u p o n f a c t-sp e c if

ic d e ter m in a tio n s in in d iv id u a l ca se s w ith no br i ght - l i ne rul es . T he fe w cas es confr ont i ng thi s i s s ue paypart i cul aratt ent i on t o the pr es ence orabs ence of pas s w or d pr ot ect i on. See ant e at 18 (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). 1T he maj or i tys ugges t s ot herw i s e atcert ai n poi nt s i n i t s opi ni on, onl yt o r ecogni ze 2 th e e x is te n c e o f

p a s s w o rd p ro te c tio n a t o th e r p o in ts . S e e a n te at5 n. 1, 21- 23.

- 2- T h e p rese n ce o f se cu ri tyo n D ef en d an t’ s co m p u ter i s u n d ispu ted. (S u p p ression H r’g 2 T r . at89. ) Y et , the maj or i tycur i ous l yar gues thatD efe ndant ’ s us e of pa s s w or d pr ot ect i on i s i nco nsequ enti al becau se D efen dan tfai l ed to ar gu e t hat com pu t er pass w ord prot ect i on i s “comm onpl ace . ” A n te at23- 24. O f cour s e, the dec i s i on pr ovi des no gui dance on w hat w o u ld c o n stitu te s u f

f icie n t p ro o f

o f th e p re v a len c e o f

p a ss w o rd p ro tec tio n , n o r d o e s it ex p lai n w h ythe c o u rtco u ld n o t t ak e jud ici al no ti ce that p assw o rd p rotec ti o n is a stand ard f e a tu re o f o p e ra tin g sy ste m s. D e sp ite re c o g n izin g th e “ p e rv a siv e n e ss o f c o m p u ter s in A m er i can homes , ” a n te at15, and the fa ctthatthe “pe r s onal comput eri s oft en a re p o sito ryf

o r p riv a te in f

o rm a tio n th e c o m p u ter ’s o w n e r d o e s n o t in ten d to sh a re w ith other s , ” i d. , the maj or i tyr equi r es the i nvocat i on of m agi cal l anguage i n or dert o gi ve e f f e c t to D e f

e n d a n t’ s s u b

je c tiv e in te n t to e x c lu d e o th e rs f ro m a c c e s s in g th e c o m p u te r. T he deve l opm entof comput erpas s w or d t echnol ogyno doubt“pr es ent s a cha l l enge di s t i nctfr om thatas s oci at ed w i th othertypes of” l ocke d c o n ta in e rs . A n te at16- 17. B ut thi s di ffi cul tydoes notand ca nnotnegat e Four th A m endmentpr ot ect i on t o comput er s to ra g e n o r r e n d e r a n e x p e c ta tio n o f c o m p u te r p ri v a c yu n re a s o n a b le . C f . U ni t ed Stat es v. Sal i nas - C ano , 959 F. 2d 861, 864 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( cons i der i ng, i n as s es s i ng appea l of s uppr es s i on m ot i on, “the pr eca ut i ons t aken bythe ow nert o m ani fes thi s s ubj ect i ve e x p e c tatio n o f

p riv a c y , fo r e x a m p le lo c k in g th e c o n tain e r” ); s ee al s o G eor gi a v. R andol ph , 547 U . S. 103, 126 S. C t . 1515, 1535 ( 2006) ( R obert s , C . J . , di s s ent i ng) ( “To t heI r ecogni ze thatthe abi l i tyof us er s t o pr ogr am aut om at i c l og- i ns and the 3 capa bi l i tyof oper at i ng s y s t ems t o “mem or i ze” pas s w or ds pos es pot ent i al pr obl ems, s i nce these on l ycreat e t he ap pearance o f a restri ct i on w i tho ut actuall yblocki ng access.

- 3- ext enta per s on w ant s t o ens ur e thathi s pos s es s i ons w i l l be s ubj ectt o a cons ents ear ch on l ydu e t o h i s ow n co n sen t, h e is fre e to p lace thes e it em s in a n are a o v er w h ich o thers d o n o t s h a re a c c e s s a n d c o n tr o l, b e it a p ri v a te ro o m o r a lo c k e d s u itc a s e u n d e r a b e d .” ). T he u nco nst rai ned abil i tyof law enfo rcem ent t o u se forensi c soft w are s uch as the E nC ase pr ogr am t o bypas s pas s w or d pr ot ect i on w i thoutfi r s tdet erm i ni ng w hethers uch pas s w or ds h a v e b e e n e n a b le d d o e s n o t “ e x a c e rb a te [ ]” th is d if f ic u lty, a n te at17 n. 5; r ather , i tavoi ds i tal t ogether , s i m ul t aneous l yand dange r ous l ys i des t eppi ng the Four th A m endmenti n t he pr oces s . I ndeed, the maj or i tyconce des thati f s uch pr ot ect i on w er e “s how n t o be comm onpl ace , l aw enfor cement ’ s us e of f or ens i c s oftw ar e l i ke EnC as e . . . m ayw el l be s ubj ectt o ques t i on. ” A n te at24 n. 8. B utthe fa ctthata comput erpas s w or d “l ock” may notbe i m m edi at el

y vi s i bl e does notr enderi tunl ocked. I appr eci at e thatunl i ke the l ocked fil e c ab inet, co m p u ters ha v e n o h an d le t o p u ll . B u t, li k e the p ad lock ed fo o tl o ck er, co m p u ters do ex h ibito u tw ard sign s o f p assw o rd p rotec ti o n : th eyd isplayb o o t pas sw o rd scr eens, usernam e/passw ord l og -i n screens, and / or scr een-saver r eact i vati on passw ords. 3 T h e f a c t re m a in s th a t E n C a se ’s a b ili tyto b yp a ss se c u ritym e a su re s is w e ll k n o w n to l aw enfor cement . H er e, I C E ’ s for ens i c comput ers peci al i s tfound D efe ndant ’ s comput er turned off

. W i thoutturni ng i ton, he hooked hi s l apt op di r ect l yt o the har d dr i ve of D e f e n d a n t’s c o m p u ter a n d ra n th e E n C a se p ro g ra m . T h e a g e n ts m a d e n o e f f o rt to- 4-

as cert ai n w hethers uch s ecur i tyw as enabl ed pr i ort o i ni t i at i ng the s ear ch. T he t es t i m ony m a k e s c lea r th a t su c h p ro tec tio n w a s d isc o v e re d d u rin g a d d iti o n a l co m p u ter a n a ly sis c o n d u c te d a t th e f

o re n s ic s p e c ia lis t’ s o f

f ic e . C f . U ni t ed Stat es v. B uckne r , 473 F. 3d 551, 5 5 5 & n .3 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (h in tin g th a t o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le b e lief in v a lid th ird -p a rty co n sen t cou ld b e tainted b yu n n o ti ce d p rese n ce o f p assw o rd p rotec ti o n an d there fo re lim iti n g its h o ld in g to p re v e n t “[ re lian c e ] u p o n a p p a re n t au th o rityto se a rc h w h ile s i m ul t aneous l yus i ng m i r r or i ng orothert echnol ogyt o i nt ent i onal l yavoi d di s coveryof p a s s w o rd o r e n c ryp tio n p ro te c tio n p u t in p la c e b yth e u s e r” ). T he maj or i typoi nt s outthatl aw enfor cement“di d notas k s peci fi c ques t i ons ” about D r. A n d rus’ u se o f th e c o m p u ter or k n o w ledg e o f R ayA n d rus’ u se o f p assw o rd p ro te c tio n , a n te a t 2 0 , b u t tw ice c riticiz e s D r. A n d ru s’ f a ilu re to a f

f irm a tiv e lyd isc laim ow ner s hi p of, contr ol over , orknow l edge r egar di ng the comput er . O f cour s e, the comput erw as l ocat ed i n R ayA ndrus ’ veryt i nybedr oom , butthe maj or i tym akes no e f f o rt to e x p la in h o w th is d o e s n o t c re a te a n a m b ig u o u s s itu a tio n a s to o w n e rs h ip . C f. B uckne r , 4 7 3 F .3 d a t 5 5 5 (c o m p u ter lo c a ted in c o m m o n liv in g a re a ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor gan , 4 3 5 F .3 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 2 , 6 6 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (s a m e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. A ar on , 33 Fed. A p p ’x 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (un p u b li sh ed ) (co m p u ter l o ca ted in u n lock ed sp are b e d ro o m ); Trulock v . Fr eeh , 2 7 5 F .3 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 8 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (c o m p u ter lo c a ted in c o n se n ter ’s b e d ro o m ); U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 27 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1116 ( C . D . I l l . 1998) ( comput erl ocat ed i n m as t erbedr oom al cove thatdefe ndants har ed w i th cons ent erand c o n s e n te r’ s c h ild re n ).- 5-

T h e b u rd e n o n la w e n f

o rc e m e n t to id e n tif

yo w n e rs h ip o f

th e c o m p u te r w a s m in im a l. A sim p le q u e stio n o r tw o w o u ld h a v e su f f ice d . P rio r to th e c o m p u ter se a rc h , the a g e n ts q u e stio n e d D r. A n d ru s a b o u t R a yA n d ru s’ s tatu s a s a re n ter a n d D r. A n d ru s’ a b ili tyto ent erhi s 51- y ear - ol d s on’ s bedr oom i n or dert o det erm i ne D r . A ndrus ’ abi l i tyt o cons ent t o a s ear ch of the r oom , butthe age nt s di d noti nqui r e w hetherD r . A ndrus us ed the comput er , and i f s o, w hetherhe had a cce s s t o hi s s on’ s pas s w or d. A tthe s uppr es s i on h ea ri n g , the a g en ts t esti fied that theyw ere n o t i m m ed iat elyaw are that D ef en d an t’ s c o m p u ter w a s th e o n lyo n e in th e h o u se , an d th e yb e g a n to d o u b t D r. A n d ru s’ a u th o rityto co n sen t w h en theylearn ed this fac t. T h e re co rd re v ea ls th at, u p o n q u esti o n ing , D r. A n d rus in d icated that there w as a co m p u ter i n the h o u se a n d led th e a g en ts t o D ef en d an t’ s ro o m . T h e f

o re n sic sp e c ialist w a s th e n su m m o n e d . It t o o k h im a p p ro x im a telyf if tee n to tw e n tym in u tes to se t u p h is e q u ip m e n t, y e t, biz a rre ly , at n o p o in t d u rin g th is p e rio d d id the age nt s i nqui r e aboutthe pr es ence of anyothercomput er s . T he cons entform , w hi ch D r . A ndrus s i gned pr i ort o even s how i ng the age nt s D efe ndant ’ s comput er , i ndi cat es t hat D r. A n d ru s c o n s e n te d to th e s e a rc h o f o n ly a s in g le “ c o m p u te r,” ra th e r t h a n c o m p u te rs . In a d d iti o n , the lo c a l p o lice o f f ice r a c c o m p a n y in g th e IC E a g e n ts h e a rd D r. A n d ru s te ll hi s w i fe thatthe age nt s w ant ed t o s ear ch D ef end an t ’s comput er , w hi ch w oul d have caused a reas on able l aw enfo rcem ent offi ci al t o q uest i on D r. A nd rus’ ow nershi p an d u se o f th e c o m p u te r. T h e re c o rd re f

lec ts th a t, ev e n p rio r to th e a g e n t’s a rriv a l at th e tar g e t h o m e , the a g e n tsT h e lea d IC E a g e n t tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t b e liev e su f f icie n t ev id e n c e e x iste d to 4 obt ai n a s ear ch w arr ant . G i ven the evi dence avai l abl e t o I C E i n thi s cas e, acqui r ed not on l yfrom i nit i al recor ds ari si ng ou tof a lar ge-scal e, nati on w i de invest i gati on bu tal so s u b s e q u e n t in v e s tig a tio n in c lu d in g s u rv e illa n c e a n d s u b p o e n a s f o r D e f e n d a n t’ s re c o rd s , I r emai n s kept i cal of I C E ’ s bel i ef thati tl acke d s uffi ci entj us t i fi cat i on t o obt ai n a s ear ch w arr ant . N everthel es s , the age nt ’ s opi ni on i l l us tr at es the appa r entambi gui typr es ent ed by the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e.

- 6- w er e cogni zantof the ambi gui tys urr oundi ng the s ear ch. T he age nt s t es t i fi ed thatthey 4 s us pended thei rs ear ch due t o doubt s r egar di ng D r . A ndrus ’ abi l i tyt o cons entonl yaft er th e ylea rn e d th a t th e in ter n e t se rv ice u se d b yD e f e n d a n t ca m e b u n d led w ith th e c a b le t el evi s i on s ervi ce a nd w as pai d byD r . A ndrus . T he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, how ever , thatt he a g e n ts w e re a w a re o f

th is f a c t p rio r to th e se a rc h , h a v in g su b p o e n a e d th e in ter n e t/ca b le re c o rd s f ro m th e se rv ice p ro v id e r p rio r to th e ir “ k n o c k -a n d -ta lk .” G iv e n th e in e x c u sa b le confus i on i n t hi s cas e, the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s s i m pl ynotenough t o j us t i fythe a g e n ts ’ u s e o f

E n C a s e s o f

tw a re w ith o u t m a k in g f u rt h e r i n q u ir y . A ccor di ngl y , i n m yvi ew , gi ven the ca s e l aw i ndi cat i ng the i m por t ance of comput er pas s w or d pr ot ect i on, the comm on know l edge a boutthe pr eval ence of pas s w or d us age, a n d th e d e sig n o f

E n C a se o r sim ilar p a ss w o rd b yp a ss m e c h a n ism s, th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t a n d th e re a s o n a b le in q u ir yru le , s ee I l l i nois v. R odr iguez , 497 U . S. 177, 188 (1 9 9 0 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. K i m oana , 383 F. 3d 1215, 1222 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( col l ect i ng cas es ) , m andat e thati n cons ent - bas ed, w arr ant l es s comput ers ear ches , l aw enfor cement per s onnel i nqui r e orot herw i s e che ck forthe pr es ence of pas s w or d pr ot ect i on and, i f a pas s w or d i s pr es ent , i nqui r e aboutthe cons ent er ’ s know l edge of thatpas s w or d and j oi nt- 7-

a c c e s s to th e c o m p u te r. Th i s d e c i s i o n r e q u i r e s r e s o l u t i o n o f th e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f

De f e n d a n t ’ s c o n s e n t . I n my m i nd, the cr i t i cal i nqui r yi s w hetherD efe ndantw as i n fac ti nform ed bef or e gi vi ng cons entthatthe off

i cer s had al r eadyexami ned hi s pas s w or d- pr ot ect ed comput erand f o u n d in c ri m in a tin g e v id e n c e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to a d e q u a te ly re s o lv e th is d is p u te . It “ n o te [ d ] f

o r t h e re c o rd ” th e c o n tr a d ic to ry te s tim o n y , “ c o n s id e re d th e c o n tr a d ic tio n s ,” and found that“the age nt s ful l yadvi s ed [D efe ndant ] of the ci r cum s tances fac i ng hi m . ” ( Suppr es s i on H r ’ g T r . at171 ( emphasi s added) . ) A bs entfur thercons i der at i on and el abor at i on r egar di ng exac t l yw hatfac t s compri s ed thos e “c i r cumst ance s , ” I cannot det erm i ne w hetherD efe ndant ’ s cons entw as i m perm i s s i bl yt ai nt ed. I w oul d, ther efor e, r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the i s s ue of a ppar entauthor i tyand r emand forfur ther c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e v o lu n tar in e ss o f

D e f e n d a n t’s c o n se n t.