Can the Police Search Property You Don’t Claim to Own?
In most cases, the police need a warrant before they can search your property without your consent. More precisely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects you from an unreasonable search in any place where you have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This includes any devices where you may store private information, such as a laptop or a cellphone.
Florida Man Receives Life Sentence for Sexual Battery, Possession of Child Pornography
But what if you never expressly tell the police you own the property in question? Does the Fourth Amendment still protect you? A recent decision from the Florida First District Court of Appeal, Bates v. State, addressed these questions.
Prosecutors charged the defendant in this case with a wide range of sex crimes, including capital sexual battery and 50 counts of possession of child pornography. The case itself began when the defendant’s minor stepdaughter accused him of molesting her. The child’s mother reported this accusation to local police, who obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home.
Pursuant to the warrant, the police searched the house and seized a number of electronic devices. The police then obtained a second search warrant to search these devices. Specifically, the police wanted to search the defendant’s Android phone, which the stepdaughter claimed contained photos of the defendant’s acts of sexual abuse.
For some reason, the police were never able to search the phone. But they did recover incriminating evidence from a laptop computer in the house. This evidence included not just pictures of the stepdaughter, but also “hundreds of other images of child pornography,” according to court records.
A jury convicted the defendant and he received a life sentence. On appeal, he argued the evidence taken from his laptop should not have been admissible at trial because the underlying search was unlawful. Essentially, the defendant’s position was that the warrant did not cover the laptop.
The First District rejected that argument and upheld the defendant’s conviction and sentence. Among other issues, the appellate court said the defendant could not challenge the search of the laptop, since he never said the laptop belonged to him in the first place. At a pretrial hearing, the defendant was asked if it was his laptop. He declined to say that it was. As a result, the First District held the defendant could not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in property that he never claimed ownership over.
To be clear, the First District went on to say that even if the defendant acknowledged the laptop belonged to him, the police search was still lawful. The warrant covered a home-camera surveillance system the defendant allegedly used to capture images of his acts. “Common sense” held that the defendant had to use some sort of computer-control device to monitor that surveillance system and store its images. The First District therefore held the officers at the scene “reasonably relied” on their valid warrant to seize and search the laptop they found in the house.
Contact a Fort Lauderdale Sex Offense Lawyer Today
As previously noted, the defendant in the case above received a life sentence for his crimes. This illustrates just how serious any sex crime charge is in Florida, especially when the accuser is a minor. If you are accused of similar crimes and need legal representation from a qualified Fort Lauderdale sex offense lawyer, call Haber | Blank LLP today at 954-767-0300 to schedule a consultation.
Source:
1dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2441760/opinion/Opinion_2022-3199.pdf
