Finding Illegal Items During Services

Florida



Hello, I am a university student who is preparing to engage in a debate concerning the legality of certain searches and seizures.

Let us say that a few pictures of child pornography are stashed in the glove compartment of a person's car. That person's car breaks down on the road and has to get the vehicle serviced and repaired, but leaves the illegal photos in the dashboard. As the technician is working on the car in the customer's absence, the technician accidentally stumbles upon the pictures and calls the police, who then search the car without a warrant (ie open the glove compartment) and find the pictures.

Would that search be legal?

If no, does this change at all if the technician takes the pictures and hands it to the police on their arrival?



Thank you in advance for your answers. I will attempt to use this case as an analogy for a computer technician finding child pornography files while servicing a computer - the topic of the debate being whether the 4th amendment protects files on a computer during servicing.

We don't do homework.

Question 1: If the technician left the pictures there and alerted the police would they have to get a search warrant?

Yes and No. If the pictures are in plain view they can be seized. Based on that evidence they would then obtain a warrant to search the remainder of the vehicle. If the pictures were not in plain view, they would need to obtain a search warant for the vehicle using the testimony of the tech to secure the affadavit.

Question 2: If the technician handed them the photos could they search the car?

Yes and No. You are not protected by the 4th Amendment from private searches, only from searches by public authority (ie. government). The police could use the photos along with testimony from the tech to secure a warrant to search the vehicle.

I guess we DO do homework.

cyjeff said:

I guess we DO do homework.

Click to expand...

newbie doesn't get it

Thank you, antrc170! This makes a lot of sense now.

I realized that this looks bad - it looks like I just copy and pasted homework questions - but I assure you that this is not the case, I just made up a scenario that I plan to use during the debate. Still, it is homework, sorry for the off-topic thread.

cyjeff said:

I guess we DO do homework.

Click to expand...

well, we may do homework but at least we (or antrc at least) doesn't give correct answers so it is pretty much meaningless.

Some issues I might consider before considering the homework "done":

1. What are the requirements for the police to search an inherently mobile vehicle? (aka the automobile exception)
1a. Does the automobile exception apply when the car is in the control of another?

2. Who is allowed to give consent to search property subject to a bailment?

3. What can change the private search by the employee into a governmental intrusion?

4. Personally, even though there are additional issues involved, I might review some of the current case law regarding child porn found on computers turned in for repair. There's a lot of stuff out there. Child pornsters don't seem to be the brightest bulbs on the marquee.

(I was going to say what justalayman said as I was typing, but decided to show some of the reasons why.)

antrc170 said:

You are not protected by the 4th Amendment from private searches, only from searches by public authority (ie. government). The police could use the photos along with testimony from the tech to secure a warrant to search the vehicle.

Click to expand...

Just as an FYI, the 4th AM can bind a private entity at times, but not here, no.

UFStudent said:

As the technician is working on the car in the customer's absence, the technician accidentally stumbles upon the pictures and calls the police, who then search the car without a warrant (ie open the glove compartment) and find the pictures.

Would that search be legal?

Click to expand...

I'll say this, as a starting point, the US SC has stated time and again "A search conducted without a warrant is presumptively Unreasonable".

Absent prior judicial authority, a warrantless search will be scrutinized in detail by a court. The gov't has to prove the search was conducted based on one of the "exceptions'.

There's your starting point.