## Facts

- Joseph Michael Wilkinson shared an apartment with Jessica Schultze and another roommate; each had a separate bedroom.
- Schultze kept a computer with a webcam in her room, used mainly for online video conversations.
- Schultze’s boyfriend, Harry Sadler, noticed the webcam had been repositioned toward the bed and files on Schultze’s computer had been deleted; he found a video suggesting covert recording in Schultze’s room.
- Schultze and Sadler contacted police; Officer James Walker was told Sadler intended to look for evidence in Wilkinson’s room, and Walker stated Sadler could pick up items lying around the apartment.
- Sadler entered Wilkinson’s bedroom without permission, took numerous unmarked CDs, and viewed some on a computer, finding images of Schultze and Sadler nude and engaged in sexual activity; he ultimately took about 36 discs.
- Sadler showed images from some CDs to Walker; Walker indicated he needed to see more explicit images, after which Sadler reviewed additional CDs and displayed more images.
- An officer later viewed images on several CDs, and the record did not establish that police viewing was limited to discs Sadler had previously viewed.
- Wilkinson was charged with burglary based on his entry into Schultze’s room to use her webcam/computer to obtain images; after his suppression motion was denied, he pleaded no contest and received probation with jail time.
- Wilkinson appealed, challenging denial of suppression.

## Issues

1. Whether Sadler acted as an agent or instrument of law enforcement when he entered Wilkinson’s room and seized the CDs, triggering Fourth Amendment constraints.
2. Whether police exceeded the permissible scope of the private search by directing Sadler to show additional images and by viewing CDs without a warrant when it was unclear Sadler had previously viewed those CDs.
3. If an unlawful police search occurred, whether Wilkinson’s statements and consent to search were fruits of that illegality requiring suppression.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held Sadler was not acting as a police agent when he entered Wilkinson’s room and seized the CDs; his conduct was a private search not governed by the Fourth Amendment.
- The court held police conducted an unlawful, warrantless search by expanding the private search: they instructed Sadler to produce additional images and officers viewed CDs without knowing whether Sadler had previously examined those discs.
- The court reversed the probation order (appealable judgment) and remanded for the trial court to determine what evidence, if any, was tainted by the unlawful police search.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment restrains governmental action, not purely private searches; a private party becomes a state actor only when acting as an instrument or agent of the police.
- Agency depends on the totality of circumstances, including police knowledge/acquiescence and whether the private actor’s primary purpose was to assist law enforcement rather than pursue personal ends.
- Under the private-search doctrine, police may repeat what a private party has already exposed but may not significantly expand the search without a warrant.
- Digital storage media such as CDs are treated as closed containers; viewing additional files or discs not previously viewed by the private searcher is a separate search requiring Fourth Amendment justification.
- When an illegal search occurs, courts must decide whether later evidence (including statements and consent) is suppressible as fruit of the illegality, considering attenuation and related doctrines.

## Conclusion

Sadler’s warrantless seizure of CDs from Wilkinson’s room was a private search, but police unlawfully expanded that search by directing further review and viewing discs without confirming they had already been exposed; the matter was remanded to determine which later-obtained evidence was tainted and must be suppressed.


People v. Wilkinson, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)