ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Defendant plead guilty to possession of child pornography after contraband material was discovered by computer repairmen. On appeal, defendant argued that the search warrant was invalid since police relied on an illegal search by the repairmen.

Facts: Dennis Hopwood took his computer in for repairs when he was unable to turn it on one day. During the course of fixing defendant's computer, the repairmen saw images of child pornography and called police.

At trial, Hopwood testified that it would have taken the repairmen several steps to uncover the images he had saved. An expert for the defense testified that repairing the computer's power supply would not necessitate looking at any of the files on the computer. No testimony was presented regarding what steps the repairmen took or how they came to view the images in question. Hopwood argued that the images should be suppressed because the repairmen violated his right to privacy. Hopwood also argued that the images should be suppressed because the repairmen violated a Texas law prohibiting the knowing access of another person's computer without their consent. The trial court, without making any findings of fact, denied Hopwood's motion.

Issue(s): Whether the trial court erred in denying Hopwood's motion.

Ruling: No, the trial court did not err.

Rationale: Hopwood's argument regarding the alleged invasion of his privacy fails because the federal and state constitutions only protect citizens from intrusions by government agents. In this case, since the computer repairmen were not acting as agents of the government, the constitutional protections do not apply.

As for the alleged unauthorized intrusion into his computer, Hopwood conceded at trial that when he dropped off his computer, he did not impose any limits on what the repairmen could do; he simply asked them to "fix it." Since Hopwood did not limit his instructions to specific areas in his computer, the Court could not conclude that the repairmen exceed their authority (particularly since they immediately reported their concerns to the police). The Court also questioned whether proving a violation of the computer intrusion law would be sufficient to exclude the evidence in any event.