May 112010
 
 May 11, 2010  Posted by  Court, Surveillance, U.S.

Orin Kerr writes:

In Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot search the premises based on the consent of one occupant if another occupant of the same premises is present and objects to the search.   The Third Circuit recently decided an interesting question: Does Randolph apply to a seizure of a computer found in the home?  In other words, if no occupant objects to the search of the home, but an occupant objects to the taking away of a shared computer found in the home, can the occupant block the seizure of the shared computer?

No, said the Third Circuit in United States v. King.     Expressly disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit, the Third Circuit ruled that Randolph applies only to  homes and does not extend to personal effects.    Because a computer is a personal effect, not a home, Randolph doesn’t apply…

Read more on The Volokh Conspiracy.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.