United States v. Jarrett - 338 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2003)

Rule:

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials and those private individuals acting as instruments or agents of the government. U.S. Const. amend. IV. It does not provide protection against searches by private individuals acting in a private capacity. Thus, evidence secured by private searches, even if illegal, need not be excluded from a criminal trial. A wrongful search or seizure conducted by a private party does not violate the Fourth Amendment and such private wrongdoing does not deprive the government of the right to use evidence that it has acquired lawfully.

Facts:

The Government used information provided by an anonymous computer hacker to initiate a search which produced evidence that William Jarrett violated federal statutes prohibiting the manufacture and receipt of child pornography. The district court suppressed this evidence on the ground that the hacker acted as a Government agent, and so violated the Fourth Amendment, when he procured pornographic files from Jarrett's computer. The Government appealed. 

Issue:

Was the evidence against the defendant procured in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The decision of the district court was reversed and remanded. The government did not know of, or in any way participate in, the hacker's search of defendant's computer at the time of that search, therefore, the hacker did not act as a government agent. The hacker's email exchange with an agent took place after he hacked into defendant's computer, after the fruits of the hacking were made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after defendant's home and computer were searched, and after defendant himself was arrested. As for exchanges between the hacker and the agent that did occur prior to the search, all of the exchanges were brief and took place seven to 12 months before defendant's search. The government was not a ready and willing participant in the hacker's illegal search. Moreover, the fact that the government did not actively discourage the hacker from engaging in illicit hacking did not transform the hacker into a government agent.