SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

The Fourth Amendment rights of homeowners are
implicated by the use of a surreptitiously planted listening
device to monitor third-party conversations that occurred
within their home. (Alderman v. United States (1969) 394
U.S. 165 [22 L.Ed.2 nd 176].)
Personal Property:
No expectation of privacy in a gun given to another person
(People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4 th 1148, 1171.), or an
opaque bag left, unsealed, in another person’s car (People
v. Root (1985) 172 Cal.App.3 rd 774, 778.), or a purse left in
another’s vehicle. (People v Shepherd (1994) 23
Cal.App.4 th 825, 827, 829.)
There is no expectation of privacy in a stolen computer
(United States v. Wong (9 th Cir. 2003) 334 F.3 rd 831) or
one that was obtained by fraud. (United States v. Caymen
(9 th Cir. 2005) 404 F.3 rd 1196, 1200.)
There is no expectation of privacy in a duffle bag left in an
apartment laundry room open to anyone, even though
placed out of the way on a high shelf. (United States v.
Fay (9 th Cir. 2005) 410 F.3 rd 589.)
But the owner of a gym bag the defendant kept
under his girlfriend’s bed in her apartment had
standing to challenge the search of that gym bag.
(United States v. Davis (9 th Cir. 2003) 332 F.3 rd
1163, 1167-1168.)
Defendant had standing to challenge a wiretap order on his
cellular telephone purchased by the defendant while using a
fictitious name in that there is nothing illegal in the attempt
to remain anonymous. (People v. Leon (2005) 131
Cal.App.4 th 966, 974-977.)
A business that owns the company’s computers may
consent to the search of a computer used by an employee,
at least when the employee is on notice that he has no
reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the
computer he is using. (United States v. Ziegler (9 th Cir.
2006) 456 F.3 rd 1138.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
Leaving a cell phone at the scene of a crime negates the
suspect’s expectation of privacy in the contents of that
237