West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog : Ronald Chapman: West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer | Florida Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies | Criminal Law Firm

           In the case of State of Florida versus Eric Young, the police searched a pastor's office, including his workplace computer, without first obtaining a search warrant.  The pastor later filed a motion to suppress the evidence found by the police which included "some very questionable [w]eb site addresses."  

          The appellate court deciding Young's case stated that in order to suppress this evidence, Young had to possess a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in his computer.  In deciding whether Young had such an expectation, the court looked at such things as:

          1.  Whether the church office had a written policy regarding its ability to inspect an employee's computer.

          2.  Whether Young's computer was networked to other computers; and

          3.  Whether the church regularly monitored Young's use of his computer.  The court stated that "where an employer has a clear policy allowing others to monitor a workplace computer, an employee who uses the computer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in it.  In the absence of such a policy, the legitimacy of an expectation of privacy depends on the other circumstances of the workplace."

           The court ultimately decided that Young did, in fact, have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office and office computer and that the evidence seized by the police should be suppressed.  The court based its decision on the following factors:

          1.  Young ensured his privacy by keeping his office locked when he was not there.

          2.  When others did use Young's office, it was for limited purposes.  Young expected no one to peruse the personal belongings located in his office or on his computer.

          3.  The church had installed a special lock on the door of Young's office for which there were only three keys, two of which were in Young's sole possession.  The only way to view what was on Young's computer was to enter through his locked office door.

          4.  Young had a recognized practice of allowing visitors into his office only with his permission or for purposes related exclusively to church business.

          5.  Although the church owned the computer in Young's office, Young was the sole, regular user of it.

          6.  Although the church administrator performed maintenance on Young's computer, only Young stored personal files on his computer.

          7.  The church had no written policy informing Young that other people at the church could enter his office and view the contents of his computer.

          8.  Young's computer was not networked to any other computers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          In the case of Joe Bryant versus the State of Florida, a jury convicted Mr. Bryant of the crimes of battery, handling or fondling a child under sixteen in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner, and showing obscene material to a minor.  The facts of Bryant's case are as follows:

          "The fourteen-year-old victim testified that Bryant exposed her to obscene pictures on a computer, touched her inappropriately, and committed sexual battery by digital penetration. This allegedly occurred on the first night of a two-night sleep over with Bryant's daughter at Bryant's home. The [prosecutor] also presented as evidence obscene photographs, recovered from the hard drive of a computer at Bryant's home, that had been generated the night of the sleep over. Although admittedly obscene, the images did not match the description of the pictures the victim described seeing. Also present at Bryant's home on the night in question were Bryant's eleven-year-old son, fourteen-year-old daughter and twenty-two-year-old daughter. They all testified at trial and denied observing any of the conduct leading to the charges.

          After [Bryant finished presenting his evidence], the [prosecutor] offered into evidence twenty-four additional photographs that had been recovered from the computer hard drive. The [prosecutor's] computer expert revealed that these additional images were placed on the hard drive over a three-month period of time ending some two weeks to a month before the night of Bryant's alleged criminal activity in this case. [Bryant] objected to the admission of these additional images."

          Bryant appealed his convictions, and the appellate court deciding his case ruled that he should receive a new trial because the prosecutor should not have been allowed to show the jury the twenty-four additional photographs that had been recovered from the computer hard drive.  The appellate court based its decision on the following three factors:

          1.  The prosecutor presented no direct evidence that the twenty-four photographs were placed onto the hard drive by Bryant even though, of all the people having access to that computer, Bryant was the one most likely to have viewed them.

          2.  Compared to the pictures shown to the jury during the first portion of the trial, the twenty-four additional photos revealed a distinct difference in subject matter.  More specifically, except for one pornographic cartoon, the first set of pictures showed undressed adolescent and pre-adolescent girls; however, the twenty-four additional photographs contained several images of sexual activity.

          3.  The prejudicial impact of the twenty-four additional photos far outweighed any value they may have had in proving that Bryant was guilty of the crimes he was charged with committing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link