US v Ziegler ( OScannlain, 2007) One well settled exception in search and seizure without warrant is where valid consent

is obtained by the government. In proving voluntary consent, the government is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third part who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. Further, in Mancusi thus establishes that even where a private employee retains an expectation that his private office will not be the subject of an unreasonable government search, such interest may be subject to the possibility of an employers consent to a search of the premises which it owns. The Court is then convinced that Frontline could give valid consent to a search of the contents of the hard drive of Zieglers workplace computer because the computer is the type of workplace property that remains within the control of the employer even if the employee has placed personal items in it. FACTS: Anthony Cochenour, owner of Frontlines Internet-service provider and the fiance of a Frontline employee, contacted Special Agent James A. Kennedy of the FBI with a tip that a Frontline employee had accessed child-pornographic websites from a workplace computer. Kennedy contacted Frontlines IT administrator, Softich, who then informed Kennedy, upon monitoring their Internet access, that a Frontline employee (Ziegler) accessed child pornography via the Internet. Softich also informed Kennedy that the IT department had already placed a monitor on Zeiglers computer to record its Internet traffic by copying its cache files. Furthermore, according to Schneider, another IT employee of Frontline, Frontline owned and routinely monitored all workplace computers and that employees were aware of the IT departments monitoring capabilities. The parties dispute what happened next. According to Scheider and Softich, Kennedy instructed them to make a copy of Zieglers hard drive because he feared it might be tampered with before the FBA could make arrest. Agent Kennedy, however, denied that he directed the Frontline employees to do anything. According to his testimony, his understanding was that the IT department had already made a backup copy of Zieglers hard drive. Whatever Agent Kennedys actual instructions, the Frontline IT employees subjective understanding of that conversation made them obtain a key to Zeiglers private office from CFO Ronald Reavis and opened Zeiglers computers outer casing and made two copies of the hard drive. Frontlines corporate counsel informed Kennedy that Frontline would cooperate fully in the investigation and voluntarily turn over Zeiglers PC which prompted Kennedy not to secure a search warrant anymore.

Zeigler was indicted for child pornography. He filed motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his workplace. He likens the workplace computer to the desk drawer or file cabinet given Fourth Amendment protection. He further argues that the search was conducted at the behest of Kennedy who was undeniably seeking evidence of crime and not through a search conducted by a network administrator whose work was to search for evidence of employee misconduct. ISSUES: WoN a Zeigler had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office and computer. YES, he has legitimate expectation of privacy. If he has, then WoN the search and seizure was reasonable under the narrow exceptions to Fourth Amendment1s warrant requirement. YES, search and seizure are reasonable. HELD: Yes, Zeigler had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office and computer. A criminal defendant may invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment only if he can show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized. This expectation is established where the claimant can show: (1) a subjective expectation of privacy; and (2) an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. It is Zeiglers burden to prove both elements. It is undisputed that Zeigler has subjective expectation of privacy in his office and workplace. The use of a password on his computer and the lock in his private office door are sufficient evidence of such expectation. In Mancusi v DeForte, the Court held that a union employee had Fourth Amendment rights with regard to an office at union headquarters that he shared with two other employees, even though we acknowledge that those other employees and their personal or business guests and higher-ups could enter the office. Zeiglers expectation of privacy in his office was reasonable because his office was not shared by co-workers and kept locked. Now that it has been established that Zeigler has reasonable expectation of privacy, we now discuss the Courts ruling on the second issue. One well settled exception in search and seizure without warrant is where valid consent is obtained by the government. In proving voluntary consent, the government is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third part who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. Further, in Mancusi thus establishes that even where a private employee retains an expectation that his private office will not be the subject of an unreasonable government search, such interest may be subject to the possibility of an employers consent to a search of the premises which it owns.
1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Court is then convinced that Frontline could give valid consent to a search of the contents of the hard drive of Zieglers workplace computer because the computer is the type of workplace property that remains within the control of the employer even if the employee has placed personal items in it. The Court mentions the analogy of a personal luggage brought by an employee to the workplace. The outward appearance of the luggage is affected by its presence in the workplace, but the employees expectation of privacy in the contents of the luggage is not affected in the same way. The workplace computer is different from the luggage because Frontline IT department employees have complete administrative access to anybodys workplace computer. In this context, Ziegler could not reasonably have expected that the computer was his personal property, free of any type of control by his employer. The content of his hard drive are work related items that contained business information and which were provided to, or created by, the employee in the context of the business relationship. Zeiglers downloading of personal items to the computer did not destroy the employers common authority. Thus, Frontline, as the employer could consent to a search of the office and the computer that it provided to Zeigler for his work. Dispositive: District court decision to deny motion to suppress evidence of child pornography is affirmed. By: Dorothea M. Ramizo