Opinion ID: 1214508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legality of Search of Stults's Computer

Text: Stults first argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the government conducted a warrantless search of his home computer. In response, the government asserts that the district court properly denied Stults's motion to suppress because Stults' use of LimeWire, a P2P file-sharing network, belies a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files searched; therefore, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when a law enforcement officer browses or downloads files from a computer that is sharing files with other networks on a file-sharing network. We review the district court's factual determinations in support of its denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Clarke, 564 F.3d 949, 958 (8th Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We must affirm an order denying a motion to suppress unless the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, is based on an erroneous view of the applicable law, or in light of the entire record, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). When moving to suppress evidence on the basis of an alleged unreasonable search, the defendant has the burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. United States v. James, 534 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Whether a defendant has a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy involves a two-part inquiry  the defendant must show that (1) he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched or the items seized, and (2) society is prepared to accept the expectation of privacy as objectively reasonable. Id. at 872-73 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, we must decide whether Stults had both a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in files accessed through Stults's installation and use of LimeWire, P2P file-sharing software. LimeWire is a peer-to-peer file sharing application that connects users who wish to share data files with one another. United States v. Lewis, 554 F.3d 208, 211 (1st Cir.2009). It is indifferent to the nature of the data-images or text or music or video or software. [It is] equally indifferent to the legal status of the data-public-domain or copyrighted or contraband. Id. LimeWire combines two functions: the ability to search for and download files from other users, and the ability to make files on one's own computer available to other users. Id. When a user wants to download files from other users, he launches LimeWire and inputs a search term or terms. The application then seeks matches for those terms in the file names and descriptions of all files designated for sharing on all computers then running the LimeWire application.... Id. LimeWire will then display[] a list of file names that match the search terms, and the user can select one or more of those to begin downloading the files. Id. Several federal courts have rejected the argument that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her personal computer when file-sharing software, such as LimeWire, is installed. See, e.g., United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117, 1127 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the downloaded files stored on his computer, meaning that an agent's use of a file-sharing software program to access child pornography files on the computer did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights); United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196, 1205 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that defendant had no expectation of privacy in government's acquisition of his subscriber information, including his IP address and name from third-party service providers, where the defendant voluntarily transmitted such information to Internet providers and enabled P2P file sharing on his computer, which permitted anyone with Internet access the ability to enter his computer and access certain folders); United States v. Barrows, 481 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir.2007) ([The defendant] claims that he invited no one to use his computer and therefore expected its contents to remain private. Yet he surely contemplated at least some third-party access: he knowingly networked his machine to the city computer for the express purpose of sharing files.); United States v. Brese, No. CR-08-52-D, 2008 WL 1376269, at  (W.D.Okla. April 9, 2008) (unpublished) (The Court finds that, notwithstanding any subjective expectation that Defendant may have had in the privacy of his computer, it was not reasonable for him to expect privacy in files that were accessible to anyone else with LimeWire (or compatible) software and an internet connection.); United States v. Borowy, 577 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1136 (D.Nev.2008) (In this case, [the defendant] did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in files he made available to others using P2P software.). We hold that Stults had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files that the FBI retrieved from his personal computer where Stults admittedly installed and used LimeWire to make his files accessible to others for file sharing. One who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking. As a result, [a]lthough as a general matter an individual has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal computer, we fail to see how this expectation can survive [Stults's] decision to install and use file-sharing software, thereby opening his computer to anyone else with the same freely available program. Ganoe, 538 F.3d at 1127 (internal citation omitted). Even if we assumed that Stults did not know that others would be able to access files stored on his own computer, Stults did know that he had file-sharing software on his computer; indeed, he admitted that he used it  he says to get music [and to download pornography]. Id. As a result, Stults opened up his download folder to the world, including Agent [Cecchini]. Id. Having failed to demonstrate an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept as reasonable, [Stults] cannot invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Id.