Forensic Analysis of Lawfully Seized Computer Hard Drive is Not Subsequent Warrant-less Search

State v. Johnson, Minn.Ct.App., 6/17/2013.  In a stipulated facts trial, the trial court found Mr. Johnson guilty of five counts of possessing a pornographic work involving minors.  Agents from the BCA obtained a search warrant for Mr. Johnson's residence; the warrant specifically authorized the seizure of computer systems, hard drives, and the data contained on hard drives.  Agents seized a hard drive but did not get around to examining it for several months.  Mr. Johnson moved to suppress the evidence found during the forensic analysis, saying that the analysis was a warrant-less search.  The trial court disagreed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court.

The court said that Mr. Johnson did not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the hard drive.  This was because the drive and data on it were seized pursuant to a search warrant authorizing a seizure of that very hard drive.  Further, the search warrant authorized the seizure and search of the data on the hard drive.  The court likened the hard drive to a container that has already been lawfully opened, found to contain contraband and then resealed.  Resealing the container neither revives nor restores the lawfully invaded privacy rights.  Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983).  So, peeking into the box, or subjecting it to a data analysis for that matter, is not a "search."  

Mr. Johnson also complained about the sentence, specifically that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering a downward dispositional departure.  Now, the agreement did not call for a sentencing departure and defense counsel neither moved nor argued for one.  Counsel just pointed out that the judge had the discretion to sentence more leniently than the parties' agreement specified.  The court of appeals says that a trial court is not required to abide by the parties' sentencing agreement, but in this case there were no compelling circumstances to support a sentencing departure.  Because of that, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the guidelines sentence.