Opinion ID: 1235169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suppression of the Evidence from Starr's Wife

Text: Starr contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Detective Miller or other law enforcement officers examined the items brought by Mrs. Starr to the police station, without first obtaining a warrant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Absent some well-settled exception, unconsented warrantless searches are unreasonable. United States v. Miller, 152 F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir.1998). The Fourth Amendment, however, does not extend to private searches that are neither instigated by nor performed on behalf of a governmental entity. Id. [T]he legality of later government intrusions `must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search.' Id. (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984)). Starr concedes that private searches are not covered by the Fourth Amendment's protections but maintains that the officers needed a warrant before re-examining the materials provided by Mrs. Starr. When the government re-examines materials following a private search, the government may intrude on an individual's privacy expectations without violating the Fourth Amendment, provided the government intrusion goes no further than the private search. Id. at 815 ([T]o be a Fourth Amendment search, a governmental intrusion must infringe on a legitimate expectation of privacy. Because a private search frustrates such an expectation, an ensuing police intrusion that stays within the limits of the private search is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.) (citations omitted). (Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized that a third party's inspection of the contents of private books, papers, memoranda, etc. could be so complete that there would be no additional search by the [government] when it re-examines the materials. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 659 n. 14, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980)). This is such a case. In her private search prior to contacting law enforcement, Mrs. Starr examined all of the evidence that she subsequently brought to police. When the police examined the evidence, the record indicates that the officers only viewed material that had already been viewed by Mrs. Starr. Because the officers' search did not exceed the scope of Mrs. Starr's private search, we conclude that the officers did not unconstitutionally intrude on Starr's privacy interests. Accordingly, we reject Starr's argument that the government's examination of this material violated the Fourth Amendment.