Facts: Oklahoma State University provided Professor Eric Angevine with a computer linked to the university network, and through it to the Internet. Angevine used this computer to download over 3,000 pornographic images of young boys. After viewing the images and printing some of them, he deleted the files. Tipped off by Professor Angevine’s wife, police officers seized the computer and turned it over to a police computer expert who retrieved the pornographic files that the professor had deleted.

The Oklahoma State University computer policy states that:

The contents of all storage media owned or stored on University computing facilities are the property of the University.
Employees cannot use University computers to access obscene material.
The University reserves the right to view or scan any file or software stored on a computer or passing through the network, and will do so periodically to audit the use of University resources. The University cannot guarantee confidentiality of stored data.
System administrators keep logs of file names, which may indicate why a particular data file is being erased, when it was erased, and what user identification has erased it.
The trial court held that federal agents did not need a warrant to search Professor Angevine’s office computer because he had no expectation of privacy. The judge sentenced him to fifty-one months in prison for “knowing possession of child pornography.” The professor appealed.

Issue: Did Professor Angevine have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office computer?

Holding: Professor Angevine did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Oklahoma State’s policies clearly indicated that information flowing through the University network was not confidential either in transit or in storage on a University computer.

For Chapter 41, please answer the following questions: