Susan Smith contacted the police department. She spoke with a detective regarding her suspicion that her husband, Sam Smith, was stealing credit card numbers through the internet on a computer in their home. The next day, several officers responded to a domestic violence call from the Smith home that resulted when Susan confronted the Defendant with her knowledge of the theft of credit card numbers. The police asked Susan to consent to a search of the computer. Susan signed a consent form, allowing the police access to the computer. Right after Susan signed the form, Sam told the police that they could search the house, but not the computer.

The computer was located in the basement, a common area of the Smith residence to which Susan had access. Susan stated that both she and her husband had access to the computer. She told the police that she occasionally used the computer and that while they did have separate passwords, she knew her husband's password and had used it on multiple occasions. Although Susan had her own computer for her primary use she never told the officers about this computer.

Using Sam's password (provided by Susan), the police examined the contents of the computer's hard drive, which revealed files of stolen credit card numbers, and emails from Sam Smith describing how he illegally obtained the files.

Analyzing the police behavior in this problem of the day, use IRAC in regard to the following two issues:

1. Does the search of Sam Smith's computer fall under the plain view exception?
2. Does the search of Sam Smith's computer fall under the consent exception?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Issue 1 Does the search of Sam Smiths computer fall under the plain view exception Rule The plain vi... View the full answer