united-states search-and-seizure privacy us-constitution fourteenth-amendment
In the United States, when can someone legally search my personal laptop? (Government or private security)
<p>Unlike the United Kingdom, U.S. citizens don't have an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Although there are implied privacy rights within "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights this has evolved into various laws that have changed depending on the situation... it's hard to sus though and figure out.</p>

<p><strong>Generally speaking</strong>,  </p>

<ul>
<li><p>What frequently used law does does the Government rely on to search private property?  (e.g. warrant, detainment, or arrest)</p></li>
<li><p>What "domains of authority" are relevant? Is it strictly hierarchical: local, state, Federal?</p></li>
<li><p>When can corporations,  search private equipment without violating tort laws?  (as the 14th amendment doesn't apply to them)</p></li>
</ul>

<p>For a government example, despite schools having <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis">en loco parentis</a> authority, private schools have more flexibility with the 14th amendment than state funded schools do.  </p>

<p>For a private example, if I bring my laptop to a mall, does the mall security officer have the right to detain my equipment?  ... or search it?</p>

<p>Furthering the private example, from what I can tell parents are always allowed to search the property of their children.</p>

<p><strong>Motivation</strong></p>

<p>My need is to identify a <strong>general framework</strong> of where exceptions to privacy may exist in the interactions of Government, corporations, and private citizen, and not be an exhaustive list.</p>

<p>My goal is to use this with instructional material to motivate people to care about computer privacy within those contexts, because often times people either share more than necessary, or don't guard themselves appropriately without thinking of the consequences.</p>

<p>This question is framed such that it could include myriad different scenarios that could lead to a search of one's personal computer. You seem to gear the bulk of your inquiry toward when the government can search, but then move to when a corporate entity has the right to do so, which is a very different thing. These are different issues with different concepts and rules that dictate when this can occur lawfully. You might want to narrow your question a bit.</p>

<p>By way of generalization: the citizens of the U.S. <em>have</em> an <em>implied</em> right to privacy as construed through the Bill of Rights, even though there is no explicit right written into the constitution. The most common way to conduct a search in the U.S. is with probable cause through a search warrant. There are questions and answers both on here, as well as resources all over the internet, pertaining to constitutionally accepted forms of search and seizure such that you could get that information fairly easily. However, as with the U.K., and despite any rights (explicit or implicit), there are many ways your computer could be searched by the government - both known to the owner and unknown - and even remotely, that use means less common to the standard search warrant. As you've probably heard from the revelations of Edward Snowden (Wikileaks), the governments of the world have been shown to search metadata and other electronic records without a warrant under laws aimed toward protecting national security. In the U.S. the Patriot Act gave wide reaching powers to invade the privacy of individuals that required no oversight or basis for doing so. Corporations that deal with the transmission of data work with government entities to to accomplish this end.</p>

<p>As one individual has already noted, you subject yourself to search (which includes your computer) upon entry to the country through customs. There are many ways that the government can and does engender to search computers, computer files, emails, metadata, etc.</p>

<p>A corporation may search your personal computer under a contractual relationship you create with it (for instance if you work from home and elect to use your home computer, and to do so you elect to agree to allow the entity to inspect your computer for their intellectual property in certain circumstances). They can also do this pursuant to a civil lawsuit, which can allow for the inspection of your computer through the process of discovery. </p>

<p>These are just some of the ways your information can become subject to inspection (search) by government or corporate entities. Again, your question would need to be limited more to address any one situation more fully.</p>

<p>A search warrant can be issued in Ca Family Court for a petioner in a domestic violence action to 'record unlawful communication'. I.E., a defendant making or attempting contact with a protected party by mail, phone, txt, email ect. in violation of a restraining order (RO) currently in force. Such warrants are granted by a judge upon a 'preponderance of the evidence'.</p>

<p>Some of the terms used in the court documents are deceptively misleading however. 'Record Communications' sounds harmless enough if the defendant has not or has no intention of violating the RO, but can easily lead to unlawful invasion of privacy. </p>

<p>In reality, a wiretap of the subjects electronic devices,  phones, cell phones, computers et al, has been authorized, and all data within or business conducted on said devices can be accessed (possible, yet access of stored data is illegal and specified as such) although no irrelevant information is admissible as evidence in any court proceeding.</p>

<p>A 'preponderance of the evidence' sounds reasonable and just as well, yet in reality this in practice is more often than not nothing more than statements made by the plaintiff without substanciation or 'proof' and  without prior knowledge by or opportunity to object to or defend against by the respondent before actual 'search and seizure' activities ensue.</p>

<p>This is a measure taken by the court with the best of intentions, while simontaneously a measure subject to frequent and gross abuse by some petitioners.</p>

<p>More information available by web searching: Ca. Family Law Domestic Violence Order To Record Communications.</p>
