## Facts

- Police investigated online fraud conducted through AOL and eBay accounts opened in Michelle Buckner’s name.
- Officers first went to the Buckners’ home; only Frank Buckner was present, and he later called police after being told officers wanted to discuss “computer transactions” with Michelle.
- Michelle met officers at the police station and denied involvement; she stated a home computer was leased in her name and she used it only occasionally.
- The next day, officers returned when Frank was absent; Michelle cooperated and told officers to “take whatever [they] needed.”
- The computer was on a table in the living room, a common area of the shared residence; it was on with the screen lit when officers arrived.
- With Michelle’s consent, officers shut down the computer and removed its data-storage components for later forensic examination.
- The later forensic search revealed evidence of fraud within files protected by a password used by Frank; Michelle did not know the password.
- Frank was convicted in federal court and moved to suppress evidence from the password-protected files, arguing his wife lacked authority to consent; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of password-protected files on a home computer based solely on a spouse’s consent when the spouse does not know the password.
2. Whether the spouse had apparent authority to consent to the search of those password-protected files based on the facts known to officers at the time.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
- The court accepted that password protection supported Frank’s expectation of privacy in the files.
- The court held the search was reasonable because officers could reasonably believe Michelle had authority to consent to search the computer and its contents, including the password-protected files.
- The court distinguished prior precedent invalidating third-party consent where officers knew particular files were password-protected and exclusively associated with the non-consenting user.
- The court rejected the argument that officers were required to ask additional questions about passwords or exclusive use before relying on Michelle’s consent.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless search based on third-party consent is valid when officers reasonably believe, from the facts available at the time, that the consenting person has common authority over the item searched.
- Apparent authority turns on objective reasonableness, not whether the third party actually had common authority.
- Password protection generally indicates an intent to exclude others and supports a privacy interest, but it does not invalidate a search if officers reasonably lack notice that access is restricted to the non-consenting user.
- Broad consent to seize and search a computer can extend to later off-site forensic analysis when the consent reasonably covers investigation of the suspected computer-related offense.
- Officers are not required to conduct further inquiry into the boundaries of authority when circumstances reasonably indicate the third party has joint access or control.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the warrantless forensic search of password-protected files because officers reasonably relied on the wife’s apparent authority to consent, given the computer’s connection to her, its placement in a shared area, and her broad cooperation, and because officers lacked notice that specific files were exclusively controlled by the husband.


United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551 (4th Cir. 2007)