Warrantless Searches of Sexual Blackmailer's Devices Constitutional, Appeals Court Rules
A probation department's warrantless searches of a high school boy's electronic devices are "appropriately tailored" given that he used his cellphone for extortion and to store child pornography, ruled California's Sixth District Court of Appeal.
January 27, 2020 at 05:27 PM
4 minute read
A juvenile who used sexually explicit photos and videos of his ex-girlfriend, a minor, to extort money from her will have to turn over the login information for all of his electronic devices to a probation department after an appeals court ruling.
California's Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld an order Jan. 24 from Santa Clara County Superior Court requiring warrantless searches of the high-school-aged offender's devices as a condition of his probation stemming from his conviction for possession of child pornography and sexual blackmail. On appeal, the minor argued that the order was unconstitutional and overbroad.
The appeals court, however, found the searches "appropriately tailored."
"Minor stored the illegal photographs and videos on his cellular phone, and he used that phone to send text messages demanding money while implicitly threatening to share the 'pics and videos' with others if Jane Doe did not comply," wrote Associate Justice Adrienne Grover in an opinion joined by Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Associate Justice Eugene Premo. "In the context of this case, access to minor's electronic devices is critical to monitor his progress on probation and to ensure that he is not continuing to engage in the sort of criminal conduct that led to him being declared a ward of the court."
The minor's court-appointed attorney, Heather Shallenberger of Truckee, California, did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to threatening to distribute the photos around the teens' high school, he used the content to blackmail Jane Doe into having sex with another boy, who also recorded the encounter, according to the opinion.
The appeals court had originally affirmed the lower court's opinion mandating the warrantless searches, but the California Supreme Court kicked the case back to the court following its decision In re Ricardo P. The August ruling found warrantless searches of 17-year-old Ricardo P.'s devices overbroad since the juvenile court relied on the fact that the boy said his decision to burglarize was influenced by his use of marijuana, and "minors typically will brag about their marijuana usage or drug usage, particularly their marijuana usage, by posting on the internet, showing pictures of themselves with paraphernalia, or smoking marijuana." The appellant in the case decided Jan. 24 had argued that his probation was similarly overbroad.
But again, the court emphasized the use of an electronic device in the minor's crimes, ruling that "the rationale of Ricardo P. does not apply here because the offense Ricardo committed did not involve the use of an electronic device, whereas an electronic device was integral to minor's adjudication."
The minor also asserted that the scope of electronic devices probation officers could search is also overbroad, arguing it could apply to "a digital television; video game console, both hand-held and stationary; and something as innocuous as a Kindle Fire or DVD player merely because the device was in [minor's] control," according to the decision.
The court, however, found that if the searches were limited to certain devices, the defendant could maneuver around the condition by using unlisted devices for blackmail or child pornography.
"As drafted, the condition is directed at preventing minor from engaging in the very conduct that brought him under the court's supervision, while providing probation officers with flexibility in dealing with technological capabilities," Grover wrote.
The boy invoked the privacy rights of third parties in his appeal, as well. He posited that the probation officers would be violating the privacy of social media users he's connected with if he were to turn over the passwords for his accounts.
The justices decided that he could simply notify third parties that the content they share with him could be subject to searches, and regardless, he does not have the standing to assert the constitutional rights of third parties.
When asked for comment, a representative said the attorney general's office is reviewing the decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
SEC Targets Rising Crypto Financier in $115 Million Securities Fraud
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250