## Facts

- Investigators linked credit card numbers believed to belong to Jonathan Luken to purchases of child pornography from a foreign website in 2002–2003.
- In July 2006, officers approached Luken at work, said they wanted to speak privately and look at his home computer, and Luken agreed to meet at his home, driving himself.
- At the home, Luken agreed to speak with an investigator in the investigator’s car; he was told he was not under arrest, did not have to answer questions, and was free to leave.
- Luken admitted purchasing and downloading child pornography for several years and viewing it within the prior month, but said he believed none was saved on the computer.
- The investigator explained that deleted files can often be recovered using special software; when asked whether such a search might reveal child pornography, Luken stated there might be “nature shots” of nude children not in explicit positions.
- Luken signed a handwritten consent statement permitting law enforcement to “seize & view” his computer, and officers seized it.
- Officers then obtained a state search warrant to examine the computer, relying primarily on Luken’s admissions and the earlier investigative information.
- A forensic examination recovered approximately 200 images of child pornography; Luken was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- The district court denied Luken’s motion to suppress the computer evidence; Luken entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his suppression claim and received imprisonment plus five years of supervised release.

## Issues

1. Whether a forensic examination of Luken’s computer, including recovery of deleted files with specialized software, exceeded the scope of his consent and violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the district court erred or abused its discretion by imposing a five-year term of supervised release.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
- The court held Luken’s consent was voluntary and, under an objective reasonableness standard, encompassed the forensic examination described to him, including recovery of deleted files.
- The court also held the subsequent search warrant provided an independent, valid basis for the examination because it was supported by probable cause.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the five-year supervised release term as within statutory limits and reasonable in light of the sentencing factors.

## Legal Principles

- A consensual search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when consent is voluntary.
- The scope of consent is determined by objective reasonableness—what a typical reasonable person would have understood from the exchange between the officer and the consenting party.
- When consent is given after an explanation that investigators can recover deleted files with forensic software, consent to “seize & view” a computer may reasonably include a forensic examination and recovery of deleted data.
- A valid search warrant supported by probable cause can independently justify a computer search, even if consent is disputed.
- A supervised release term within the statutory range, imposed after consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, is reviewed for reasonableness and will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that Luken’s voluntary consent, interpreted under objective reasonableness and informed by the discussion of forensic recovery, authorized the computer’s forensic examination, and that a later warrant independently supported the search; it also upheld a five-year supervised release term as statutorily authorized and reasonable.


United States v. Luken, 560 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2009)