§ 3.1.12 Computers & Peer-to-Peer Networks/IP Addresses/Social Media Accounts
1. Computer & Peer-to-Peer Networks. In State v. Welch, 236 Ariz. 308, 340 P.3d 387 (App. 2014) (Div. 2), the defendant lacked an expectation of privacy preventing officers from accessing computer files. Detectives detected files on Welch’s computer while being trained to conduct investigations into possible child pornography. As part of their training, the detectives browsed peer-to-peer file sharing networks, where people on the network could request, access, and share files through direct connections to other computers connected to the network. Using the images’ secure hash algorithm values, or “SHA values,” which are essentially “digital fingerprint[s]” for each image, the detectives learned that Welch’s file list?holding over a thousand files?contained items of interest, namely, child pornography. After serving a search warrant or subpoena on the internet provider, the detectives determined the internet protocol (IP) address for the computer containing the files was associated with Welch’s residence. The trial court rejected Welch’s argument that he possessed an expectation of privacy and that the initial investigation was equivalent to physically entering his personal computer to obtain the files. Welch agreed below that a peer-to-peer network “kind of puts it out there for anybody that wants to see it.” The court denied his motion to suppress the files, stating that he waived his expectation of privacy by using “a shared file index that anybody could access.” The court of appeals affirmed, relying on Ninth Circuit cases holding that a defendant lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the downloaded files stored on his computer via file-sharing software.
A defendant did not have standing to challenge a warrantless search of a laptop computer he obtained with fraudulent use of a credit card, because even if he had some expectation of privacy, it was not a reasonable one. United States v. Caymen, 404 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2005) (defendant was charged with fraudulent use of credit card and with possession of child pornography found on the computer; the business supply store consented to the search of the computer, asking the police to examine it before returning it to the store; because defendant obtained the computer by fraud, he had no expectation of privacy in contents of hard drive).
See also United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045 (2010) (defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in files he shared over a peer-to-peer network; in addition, even if agent’s downloading and...
