"Plain View" exception in the digital age

[Quartz]

I don’t know about America, but here in the U.K., the pertinent phrase is, ‘I could not help but notice’.

[waterj2]

@Chronos

Even aside from the inventory search mentioned by Bricker, this is still a bad analogy. A machine gun simply can’t be underneath a sun visor. But suppose that the trunk of the car contained two big boxes, one labelled “ordinance”, and the other labelled “sunglasses”. Surely, the police looking for machine guns would be allowed to check both boxes. This is analogous to the case with computer files: Any file with any information can fit into any folder; it’s just the labels on those folders which distinguish them, and one can label folders any way at all.

?However, the business which labeled the files is a third party not suspected of wrongdoing. I think it would be a bit more of a stretch to show that there’s reason to be searching through everyone’s files. I’m going with the filing cabinet analogy being the closest one to how this ought to be approached. I’m sure that the courts have worked out some general principles as to how broad a warrant ought to be construed while searching through a seized file cabinet, and I think that would be the best starting place for rules on computer disks.

[Oakminster]

@Oakminster

I can see two ways to approach the issue:

1. The current SCOTUS is very pro-law enforcement, and I’d expect them to hold something like "The police were lawfully in a position to view the contents of the directory, and therefore may view anything in that directory (or hard drive, file, whatever the storage media may be).

2. A more restrictive view, that would seize on the particularity requirement, and say that the police must narrowly draw the warrant to obtain only the files needed for the players under indictment.

The problem with the second approach is that useful information could, in theory, be stored anywhere. If I were in charge of maintaining computer records I did not want law enforcement to find, I’d probably put them in unlikely places. That may not be a factor in this case, where the records where made and controlled by a third party, but from what I’ve seen, SCOTUS tries to make things easy for the cops when given the chance.

I want a do over. Y’all cool with that? Good.

New Argument:

The non-indicted people had an expectation of privacy in their records. The cops may only search those records where they already have reason to suspect wrongdoing. They may not just search through any records they so choose. If we consider computer records to be analogous to paper files
the non-indicted people may be entitled to injunctive relief. I’m kinda extrapolating from:

Roberts v. Austin, 632 F. 2d 1202

[treis]

@Cheesesteak

I, like RickJay, think this can be applied to the computer search. Just like searching a file cabinet, you are looking at player Z, you don’t get to open the file for player A. However, if you pull out a file labeled “Blood Tests, Baseball”, and A is listed right along side Z as getting a particular test that would suggest steroid use, I’d call that Plain View.

This is the best analogy I can come up with. If you are looking for “Player X’s” blood test, and you open up a folder with a bunch of names, you can only open Player X’s files. In other words you can open C:\Blood Tests\Player X. Now, if there is a C:\Blood Tests\Player Z, you can’t open Player Z’s file. However, I would say that if there is other indications of illegal activity, you can open any file. For example, any file in C:\My Illegal Steroid patients\ is open for examination.

[Bricker]

@treis

This is the best analogy I can come up with. If you are looking for “Player X’s” blood test, and you open up a folder with a bunch of names, you can only open Player X’s files. In other words you can open C:\Blood Tests\Player X. Now, if there is a C:\Blood Tests\Player Z, you can’t open Player Z’s file. However, I would say that if there is other indications of illegal activity, you can open any file. For example, any file in C:\My Illegal Steroid patients\ is open for examination.

That might work well in this specific case, where you’re looking at a third party file system that had no motive to conceal information.