## Facts

- Major John R. Larson, a U.S. Air Force officer, worked in a private, lockable office containing a government-owned computer assigned for official duties.
- The computer required a user-selected password, but system administrators had access to all files and the commander could access files not individually password-protected.
- Each log-on required acknowledging notices that the computer belonged to the Department of Defense, was for official use, prohibited illegal activity, and was subject to monitoring with user consent.
- Larson became the target of a civilian internet sting operation aimed at sexual predators and was arrested.
- After the arrest, Larson’s commander used a master key to allow investigators into the office and authorized seizure of the government computer.
- A forensic search found pornography and sexually explicit chats in which Larson believed he was communicating with an underage girl.
- A general court-martial convicted Larson of attempted carnal knowledge, attempted indecent acts with a minor, violating a lawful general regulation, communicating indecent language, and using interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity.
- The approved sentence included dismissal, six years’ confinement (reduced from nine), and total forfeitures; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Larson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a government-owned workplace computer such that a commander-authorized warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and required suppression.
2. Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by conceding guilt to some specifications during argument without Larson’s express consent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed.
- The court held Larson lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the government computer under the totality of the circumstances, so the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
- The court held counsel’s partial concessions of guilt were a permissible tactical choice on this record and did not satisfy Strickland’s deficient-performance and prejudice requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A Fourth Amendment “search” requires an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy assessed under the totality of the circumstances.
- Government ownership, workplace context, administrator/command access, and repeated log-on notices reserving monitoring and limiting use to official purposes can substantially diminish or negate any reasonable expectation of privacy in a government computer.
- Password protection and a private office may be relevant but are not dispositive where policies and notices clearly reserve government access and monitoring.
- Prior precedent recognizing privacy interests in some government-computer contexts is fact-specific and does not create a categorical rule.
- Ineffective assistance claims are analyzed under Strickland v. Washington: deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
- Counsel may, as a tactical matter, concede guilt on some offenses to contest more serious charges, so long as the concession does not function as an unauthorized guilty plea and the government still bears the burden of proof before the factfinder.

## Conclusion

CAAF upheld the denial of suppression because official-use policies and explicit monitoring acknowledgments made any privacy expectation in the government computer unreasonable, and it rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because counsel’s partial guilt concessions were treated as strategic advocacy that did not change the outcome given the strength of the evidence.


United States v. Larson, 66 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F. 2008)