4 ms·

I think it's not quite that simple. Your analysis seems correct, as far as it goes, but overlooks the argument that the owner of the computer may have consented

I think it's not quite that simple. Your analysis seems correct, as far as it goes, but overlooks the argument that the owner of the computer may have consented to give that Best Buy employee access to his files. That aspect could make this more akin to, e.g., a roommate consenting to a search of your shared apartment, and it is well established that such a search is permissible under the 4th amendment (unless you are physically present and object). Edit: Put another way, the following is not necessarily true: > Best Buy employees were working as agents of the FBI and any searches they did require a warrant. Agents of the FBI do not need a warrant to search premises or possessions that you have voluntarily given them access to.

wfo 10y ago
What if the FBI bribed your roommate to allow access to your shared apartment? What if, further, the FBI sent out a public notice saying that anyone who allows them to search a roommate's apartment where they find drugs gets $500? How many drugs do you think they would find?
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  The first question here really is The Question, I think. Does the fact that the employee is being paid to share the information with the FBI change anything? But note that we don't have a situation here where the employee gains access to your computer under false pretenses because the FBI paid him to do so. Instead, he has access in the normal course of business, with your consent. He is only being paid to share data that he rightfully has access to. (There may also be an issue lurking in that last part. What, exactly, is the scope of the consent you give a Best Buy employee? Do you consent to have him look at everything on your hard drive? I suspect that the answer to this will prove to be 'yes,' but it may require more thought.) I think the second issue, though, is largely a red herring, at least when it comes to 4th Amendment law. It may be that such considerations should affect the probative value of the evidence that is 'recovered,' but it's not clear to me how that relates to the 4th Amendment. The structure of the 4th Amendment analysis relates to what rights you have to keep other people out of your stuff, and when those right have been violated, and therefore doesn't really engage with the question of whether the evidence was planted.
askvictor 10y ago
In this case, wouldn't it be more like letting in a plumber to your house, where the plumber is getting paid by the FBI?
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  It probably would! But as far as I know, we don't have cases addressing that situation, so it's not a very useful analogue. (That doesn't mean they aren't out there. I just don't know of any.)

wfo 10y ago

What if the FBI bribed your roommate to allow access to your shared apartment? What if, further, the FBI sent out a public notice saying that anyone who allows them to search a roommate's apartment where they find drugs gets $500? How many drugs do you think they would find?

pdabbadabba 10y ago
The first question here really is The Question, I think. Does the fact that the employee is being paid to share the information with the FBI change anything? But note that we don't have a situation here where the employee gains access to your computer under false pretenses because the FBI paid him to do so. Instead, he has access in the normal course of business, with your consent. He is only being paid to share data that he rightfully has access to. (There may also be an issue lurking in that last part. What, exactly, is the scope of the consent you give a Best Buy employee? Do you consent to have him look at everything on your hard drive? I suspect that the answer to this will prove to be 'yes,' but it may require more thought.) I think the second issue, though, is largely a red herring, at least when it comes to 4th Amendment law. It may be that such considerations should affect the probative value of the evidence that is 'recovered,' but it's not clear to me how that relates to the 4th Amendment. The structure of the 4th Amendment analysis relates to what rights you have to keep other people out of your stuff, and when those right have been violated, and therefore doesn't really engage with the question of whether the evidence was planted.

askvictor 10y ago

In this case, wouldn't it be more like letting in a plumber to your house, where the plumber is getting paid by the FBI?

pdabbadabba 10y ago
It probably would! But as far as I know, we don't have cases addressing that situation, so it's not a very useful analogue. (That doesn't mean they aren't out there. I just don't know of any.)