May 21, 2010 – Police do not need a warrant to search someone’s personal computer files if a third party with access to the computer consents, the appeals court recently held.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, David Ramage was convicted on eight counts of unlawfully possessing child pornography, which was located on two computers he owned.
Ramage lived with 23-year-old Sarah Folger, who was occasionally allowed to use the computers. The computers were not password-protected.
On a tip from Folger’s GED tutor, police entered the Ramage/Folger apartment without a warrant when Ramage was out of town.
Folger told police she was allowed to use the computers and signed a consent authorizing a complete search of the premises and all property within, including the personal computers “and any other related materials to include an examination of any data stored.”
Police seized two computers, one located in a common area and one located in Ramage’s bedroom. At the police station, they found child-pornography images on the computer.
In State v. Ramage, 2009AP784-CR (May 18, 2009), Ramage appealed a Milwaukee County Circuit Court order that denied his motion to suppress evidence, asserting the search and seizure was unlawful. This appeals court affirmed the circuit court.
Noting that third party consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the appeals court concluded that search of the computers was within the “scope of Folger’s consent.” Ramage argued that Folger’s consent to search does not allow subsequent seizure – that is, police violated the Fourth Amendment by taking the computers.
Relying on Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), the appeals court held that “valid consent permits a Fourth-Amendment seizure.” Valid third-party consents cannot be restricted to “searches” only, the court wrote.
Ramage also argued that even if the seizure were lawful, access to the computers outside the home required a warrant. But Folger’s valid consent to search, seize, and access Ramage’s computer, the court held, allowed police to search its contents outside the home, just as a warrant to search photographic equipment allows police to later process any undeveloped film.
Police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing Ramage’s personal computers and accessing them later since the “scope of Folger’s consent” included examination of electronically stored data, the appeals court concluded.
