Legal Issues Regarding Digital Forensic Examiners Third Party Consent to Search

Authors

Thomas Lonardo, Roger Williams UniversityFollow
Doug White, Roger Williams UniversityFollow
Tricia P. Martland, Roger Williams UniversityFollow
Alan Rea, Western Michigan UniversityFollow

Prior Publisher

The Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (ADFSL)

Abstract

This paper focuses on Federal law as it relates to consent to search relating to Fourth Amendment privacy in the practice of Digital Forensics. In particular, Digital Examiners should be aware of how decisions in Federal Court may impact their ability to acquire evidence in both civil and criminal settings. Digital Forensics, being a relatively new field, is particularly subject to change as cases and appeals are decided. This paper provides an overview of relevant case law relating to issues in Digital Forensics. More importantly, our research provides Digital Forensic Examiners (DFE), as defined by Lonardo, White, and Rea (2008, 2009), with scenarios that illustrate the various nuances when dealing with the consent to search. From issues of common authority, conflicting consent, apparent authority, and voluntary consent, our research explores court findings and applies them to practical advice and policy formation for DFEs

References

Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 (U. S. 543 1968).

Charles Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507 (19 L.Ed.2d 576 1967).

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (164 L.Ed.2d 208 2006).

Guidance Software. (2010). EnCase. Illinois v. Rodriguez (497 U.S. 177, 181 1990).

Lonardo, T., White, D., & Rea, A. (2008). To license or not to license: An examination of state statutes regarding private investigators and digital examiners. The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security, and Law, 3(3), 1-13.

Lonardo, T., White, D., & Rea, A. (2009). To license or not to license revisited: An examination of state statutes regarding private investigators and digital examiners. The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security, and Law, 4(3), 1- 16.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (412 U.S. 218 1973).

Trulock, N. (2000a). FBI Hits Back at Trulock. National Review Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071700c.html

Trulock, N. (2000b). Excerpts from the NR article that led to the FBI seizure of the author's computer. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071700d.html

Trulock v. Freeh, F.3d 391, 403 (4th Cir. 2001). United States v. Almeida Perez, 549 F.3d 1162 (8th Cir. 2008). United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Block, 590 F.2d 535, 539 (4th Cir. 1978).

United States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215 (10th Circuit 2004).

United States v. King, 09-1861 (Third Circuit 2010).

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988 (39 L.Ed.2d 242 1974).

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 (U.S. 557 1980).

United States v. Nichols, 574 F. 3d 633, 636 (8th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Notra Trulock, Linda Conrad, 275 F. 3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001).

White, D., Micheletti, C., & Glorfeld, L. (2008). A Longitudinal Analysis of Trends in Digital Forensics Professionals. Decision Sciences International Conference, Baltimore, MD, November, 2008.

White, D., Michelletti, C., Glorfeld, L., & Rea, A. (2006). Who Are the CyberSleuths?: A Demographic Analysis of Computer Forensics Professionals. Decision Sciences International Conference, San Antonio, TX, November 18- 21, 2006. 18 U.S.C. Aggravated Sexual Abuse, 2241 C.F.R. (2010a). 18 U.S.C. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors, 2252(a)(4)(B) C.F.R. (2010b).

White, D., Micheletti, C., & Glorfeld, L. (2008). A Longitudinal Analysis of Trends in Digital Forensics Professionals. Decision Sciences International Conference, Baltimore, MD, November, 2008.

White, D., Michelletti, C., Glorfeld, L., & Rea, A. (2006). Who Are the CyberSleuths?: A Demographic Analysis of Computer Forensics Professionals. Decision Sciences International Conference, San Antonio, TX, November 18- 21, 2006.

18 U.S.C. Aggravated Sexual Abuse, 2241 C.F.R. (2010a).

18 U.S.C. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors, 2252(a)(4)(B) C.F.R. (2010b).

Recommended Citation

Lonardo, Thomas; White, Doug; Martland, Tricia P.; and Rea, Alan (2011) "Legal Issues Regarding Digital Forensic Examiners Third Party Consent to Search," Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 6 , Article 3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2011.1105
Available at: https://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol6/iss4/3