The application of the Fourth Amendment to modern day technologies continues to be a hotly debated topic in the federal courts. Most recently, the federal courts of appeal have considered the warrant requirement, and its exception for evidence in “plain view,” in connection with computer searches. Searches conducted pursuant to a warrant are limited in scope by the terms of the warrant, should not be interpreted in a “hypertechnical” manner, but should be enforced with a “commonsense and realistic” approach.1
Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, unless one of the specifically established exceptions apply. Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire,2 law enforcement officials may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant if the seizing officer is lawfully present at the place from which the evidence can be plainly viewed and the object’s “incriminating character” is immediately apparent. Because the item is in plain view, the search itself does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The seizure of the item is justified by the fact that “any ownership or possessory interest in the item is defeated by its illegality.”3
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
