Case: United States of America v. Angevine

``````````````````````````````````````````````

Question 1: How did the police find this illegal material?

Professor Angevine’s wife tipped the authorities of her husband’s activities. Officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department seized the computer and turned it over to a computer expert who used special technology to retrieve the data that had remained latent in the computer's memory despite Professor Angevine attempt to erase the pornographic files.

Question 2: Did the police obtain a search warrant before conducting this search?

Yes, with the cooperation of Professor Angevine's wife, officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department obtained a search warrant to look for child pornography on his University computer.

Question 3: Then why wasn’t this search illegal under the 4th Amendment? Why didn’t the court hold this evidence to be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule?

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment, however, a defendant must prove that he has "a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. This, in turn, requires defendant to show both that he has "a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched" and that "that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize." In analyzing whether a defendant employee has reasonable expectation of privacy in spaces or equipment supplied by his employer, courts will examine:

(1) The employee's relationship to the item seized.

(2) Whether the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was seized.

(3) Whether the employee took actions to maintain his privacy in the item.

Even where law enforcement agents