A Pennsylvania man was caught possessing child pornography by a Circuit City computer technician. The technician called the police who seized the computer and arrested the man when he returned to pick it up. With child porn as evidence on the mans computer, it should be an open and shut case right? Wrong.

As you probably know, a policeman needs a warrant to search your house for any illegal items. This warrant allows the policeman to obtain the evidence in a legal manner. The big question is, was the child porn evidence in this case obtained legally? Should the technician have been looking though the files in the first place? Read on.

What happened according to the court documents was back in 2004, Kenneth Sodomsky brought his computer into a Circuit City store so their technicians could install a DVD burner.
After they installed the DVD Burner, one of the technicians tested the burning software by searching the hard drive for video files to play back. The search results reutnred with some video files with illegal sounding names (eg. 14yr_boy_xxx.avi). The technician opened one of the videos which listed a male name and an age of 13 or 14 and it appeared to be child pornography.
Of course, the technician called the police who seized the computer and then the owner after he came to pick it up.

This case is tricky because there is a question whether the technician invaded the clients rights to privacy. If the client had an expectation of privacy then the allegedly incriminating files could potentially be suppressed. If not, they could be used as evidence against him.

The court eventually ruled that the client gave Circuit City access to the hard drive and consented to them installing a DVD drive. The court also noticed that the technicians weren’t aggressively searching though the clients files for anything illegal, but were instead testing that the drive is functioning in a “commercially acceptable manner”. The illegal files were then able to be used as evidence and the case was sent back to the trial judge for additional proceedings.

Excerpts from the courts opinion:
The court implies that the DVD drive should be been tested by inserting and playing a DVD instead of searching for a video file to play. Nevertheless, the client didn’t ask how the burner would be tested nor did he place and restrictions on his files.

The computer technicians testimony indicated that the playing of videos on the computer was a method of ensuring the DVD burner was working properly. Also, once the video search was initiated the list of the clients videos automatically appeared. The technician was free to select any video for testing purposes since the client had not restricted access to any files. Therefor, the technician did not actively engage in searching though the clients files for anything illegal.

The result of this case was:

“If a person is aware of, or freely grants to a third party, potential access to his computer contents, he has knowingly exposed the contents of his computer to the public and has lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in those contents.”

So there you have it, it was legal in Pennsylvania. Though, your mileage may vary in your own state or country.

What do you guys think of this case? Drop us a comment.