Yesterday, Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz issued an interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The petitioner challenged the government's search of password-protected files on his hard drive, claiming that he was "the only person who knew the password necessary to view files that he had created" and that his wife, who has limited knowledge of computers, lacked the authority to consent to a search of these files.
The opinion begins:
Frank Gary Buckner appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence gathered from password-protected files on the hard drive of a computer police seized from his home. The officers seized and searched the computer, without a warrant, on the basis of oral consent granted by Buckner’s wife, Michelle. On appeal, Buckner contends that although Michelle’s consent sufficed to give the officers permission to search the computer itself, her consent could not extend to his password-protected files. Because Michelle Buckner did have apparent authority to consent to the search of these files, we affirm.