Court Upholds Computer Search and Affirms Molestation and Porn Convictions

The defendant was in jail for a probation violation when he called his wife and asked her to go to his office and issue payroll checks for his business. He had left his office keys at home when he was arrested so he instructed her to take the keys and unlock his office desk to get the payroll checks. When she unlocked his desk, she discovered an envelope with pornographic pictures and a CD, both of which contained naked photos of her thirteen-year-old niece. She then asked him for the password to his business computer, which he gave to her. On the computer, the wife discovered additional images of child pornography.

The wife called the police who instructed her to bring the computer and other items to the sheriff’s office. The wife then gave them permission to look through everything. One of the officers testified that it was their understanding that they had the wife’s consent to search the computer, but that they obtained a search warrant anyway as a “precautionary measure.” The defendant testified that he was the owner of the business and that his wife rarely came to the business or had any involvement in the business. She confirmed that in her testimony. The defendant also stated that he merely told his wife to get the payroll checks from his office and give them to another employee to have them written out and signed. He testified that the checks were not in his desk but were in a box beside the desk. He also stated that he did not recall giving his wife permission to access his computer.

The defendant argued that his wife could not consent to the search of his computer since her authority was limited to getting the items necessary to write the payroll checks. The Court of Appeals noted that even if the wife did not have actual authority to give the police consent to search the computer, the police may rely on an individual’s “apparent authority” to give consent if it is reasonable for them to do so. The trial court found that it was reasonable for the police to believe that the wife had the authority to give consent to search the computer since she was married to the defendant at the time and he had instructed her to go to his office.

With regards to the defendant’s argument that the scope of his wife’s consent was limited to the processing of the payroll checks, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not “engage in such metaphysical subtleties in judging the efficacy of [his wife’s] consent.” The Court reasoned that by giving his wife the password and access to his computer, he assumed the risk that she would grant others (including the police) access to it as well. Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendant’s wife had apparent authority over his computer and electronic files to the extent that she had the ability to grant the police consent to search them.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the child pornography evidence seized from his computer. As a result, the defendant’s convictions for child molestation and possession of child pornography were affirmed.