Supreme Court Declines Case Over Techs' Right To Search Your PC

An anonymous reader writes "A few years back, a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer, while they were installing a DVD player. The guy insisted that the evidence shouldn't be admissible since the techs shouldn't have been snooping through his computer — and a lower court agreed. The appeals court, however, reversed, noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer — including testing out the newly installed software (which is how the tech claims he found the video). The guy appealed to the Supreme Court, who has declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling stands for the time being. So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer."

Comments

Reading comprehension

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.

No, but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.

That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence. Similarly, if something is inadmissible as evidence in court, it could still be legal to obtain that evidence.

Re:Reading comprehension

[iamhassi]

"Have any naked baby photos of your kids? Remember the mother who got arrested at Wal-Mart after taking such photos to be developed?"

link: "a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrestedâ"roughly, she saysâ"and charged with producing and distributing child pornography. The charges were dropped 15 months later..."

"Allowed to access" is a bit strong

[pthisis]

There's a difference between what they're "allowed to access" and what's admissible in court once they've seen it. The techs aren't the government--things they've seen don't automatically get excluded because they shouldn't have seen them.

If a private citizen breaks into my house and sees something illegal, they can usually alert the cops and have knowledge of that thing be admitted in court, even though they themselves can still be prosecuted for trespassing and breaking and entering.

Re:This is SO going to get abused

[Attila Dimedici]

If the government required the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible. Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent. The "loophole" you are referring to has existed for quite some time.
It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime, that evidence is admissible in court, as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities. If the person was asked to do so by a government official, courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply.