| D. Pennsylvania [M.D.] |
|
Reminder: These case digests are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney whom they have hired for that purpose.2010U.S. v. Nagle, Criminal No. 1:09-CR-384-01 (M.D. Pa. 9-1-2010) — During an investigation into alleged "disadvantaged business enterprise" fraud, government agents searched two corporations and made forensic images of numerous computers and one server. Information discovered on those mirror images was used to indict defendant, who moved to suppress the collected evidence. The government opposed the motion, arguing that defendant had no standing to assert any Fourth Amendment rights with respect to the computers. The court noted that none of the computers imaged were in the office of the defendant, and he had never used them. Moreover, the server was generally used by a number of employees, and there was no clear evidence that defendant had made any effort to keep material private. In general, the court concluded, defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to any of the machines imaged by the government, and thus no grounds for asserting any Fourth Amendment interests.U.S. v. Scott, CRIMINAL NO. 1:09-CR-072-01 (M.D. Pa. 8-2-2010) -- Defendant in theft case moved to suppress evidence seized by police during warrantless search of apartment in which goods were stashed, and from warrantless search of seized cell phones and computers. District Court ruled defendant had no expectation of privacy in either the apartment or in the stolen goods, and so had no basis for challenging the search. The motion was denied. U.S. v. Davies, Criminal Action No. 3:08-CR-00253 (M.D. Pa. 7-29-2010) -- Defendant was charged inter alia with possession of child pornography. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the CD containing the allegedly contraband image, arguing that the search warrant was issued without probable cause and was overly broad. The District Court held that defendant's own online chats with law enforcement agents made it reasonably likely that he either possessed or was attempting to produce child pornography, which was sufficient to provide probable cause for the search warrant. Similarly, the District Court concluded that the categories of items listed in the search warrant, while broad, still satisfied the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The motion to suppress was denied. Connors v. Connors, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-2186 (M.D. Pa. 6-1-2010) — Plaintiff and defendant separated at the beginning of 2004. A computer owned jointly by the couple was left with the defendant Lori Connors so that the couple's daughter could use it. At some point thereafter, defendant discovered sexually explicit emails from plaintiff to the woman with whom he was having an affair, as well as sexually explicit photos of that woman and others. Defendant gave the computer to her father for safe-keeping. In 2005, allegations were made against plaintiff that he had sexually molested his daughter. At a meeting with law enforcement officers to discuss the investigation, plaintiff's former father-in-law claimed to have found child pornography on the computer he had been given. With defendant's consent, police seized the computer, but found no evidence of child pornography. Plaintiff filed numerous claims against his ex-wife, his ex-father-in-law, and various law enforcement officers, including allegations that his Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the warrantless search of the computer and subsequent distribution of the sexually explict photos. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The Court granted summary judgment as to the Fourth Amendment claims, but denied it as to the Fourteenth Amendment violation of privacy claims, saying that genuine issues of fact remained as to whether defendants' distribution of the photos was legitimate. The disposition of the remaining summary judgment motions was mixed. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
