Opinion ID: 183984
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: A.4.b. Plain View Examination of File Names

Text: After highlighting the Kazvid folder, Detective Vanadia observed in the folder a list of files with lurid names. The Government argues that these file names may be examined pursuant to the plain view doctrine. Stabile disagrees. This brings us to the question of whether evidence of other crimes in a computer can be examined under the plain view doctrine. We hold that the plain view doctrine applies to seizures of evidence during searches of computer files, but the exact confines of the doctrine will vary from case to case in a common-sense, fact-intensive manner. [16] What is permissible in one situation may not always be permissible in another. There are three requirements for valid seizures of evidence in plain view. First, the officer must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in `arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed.' Second, the incriminating character of the evidence must be `immediately apparent.' Third, the officer must have `a lawful right of access to the object itself.' United States v. Menon, 24 F.3d 550, 559-60 (3d Cir.1994) (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 141, 110 S.Ct. 2301) (internal citations omitted). Detective Vanadia's examination of the file names in the Kazvid folder, to the extent that he may arguably be said to have seized the names by, for example, making a screen print, satisfies all three plain view requirements. [17] First, Detective Vanadia did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be viewed. Deetz consented to the seizure of all six hard drives and a magistrate issued a state search warrant to search all six hard drives for evidence of financial crimes. Vanadia began executing the state search warrant by searching the 120 GB hard drive. Within the 120 GB hard drive, Vanadia noticed the Kazvid folder. He lawfully highlighted the Kazvid folder to view its contents because a thorough computer search requires a broad examination of files on the computer to ensure that file names have not been manipulated to conceal their contents. See Williams, 592 F.3d at 522; Hill, 459 F.3d at 978. Nor did Vanadia unreasonably expand the scope of his search by highlighting the Kazvid folder and viewing its contents. See Mann, 592 F.3d at 784 (search was lawful where investigator conducted search within scope of warrant and did not knowingly expand the scope of the search to discover child pornography). Therefore, the first plain view requirement is satisfied because Vanadia lawfully arrived at the point from which the evidence could be viewed. Second, there is no doubt that the incriminating character of the evidencein this instance the names themselveswas immediately apparent. [18] The Kazvid folder contained files with lurid names. These file names suggested that Stabile illegally possessed contraband (child pornography). See Williams, 592 F.3d at 522 ([W]hen the officer then comes upon child pornography, it becomes `immediately apparent' that its possession by the computer's owner is illegal and incriminating.). Third, Detective Vanadia had a lawful right of access to the object of the search because he was authorized by a state search warrant to search the 120 GB hard drive for evidence of Stabile's financial crimes. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the Government properly examined the file names listed in the Kazvid folder pursuant to the plain view doctrine.