Case Study: Fourth Amendment Violation in US vs. Lichtenberger

This case study analyzes the United States vs. Lichtenberger case, which revolves around a Fourth Amendment violation. The report examines the case where the police exceeded the scope of a private search of a computer, leading to the suppression of evidence. The defendant, Aron Lichtenberger, was arrested, and his girlfriend searched his laptop, finding child pornography. The court addressed the applicability of the private search doctrine and the scope of a warrant in relation to digital devices. The Sixth Circuit held that the police violated Lichtenberger's Fourth Amendment rights by improperly searching the computer files. The report discusses the arguments of both the defendant and the government, the legal precedents cited, and the court's final decision.

United States
Vs.
Lichtenberger

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
Case Study: United States vs. Lichtenberger.......................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERNCES...................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
In case of United States vs. Lichtenberger 2015, the Court of Appeal of United States in
respect of the Sixth Circuit leading the violation of Fourth Amendment by police as they exceed
the scope for search of computer files. This decision has turned upside the holdings of the U.S.
Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, which held that as per the doctrine of private
search a police could thoroughly search the digital devices that were already searched by the a
private party (Domino, 2018). It is provided that though the Sixth Amendment effectively
adopted the scope of ‘virtual certainty’ but has failed to apply this test of scope to the facts of
this case. The report examines the case study and the decision held in the year 2015.
MAIN BODY
Case Study: United States vs. Lichtenberger
The case deals with the suppression of evidence which was discovered at the time of
private search and was later reviewed in a short time by the police officer without any warrant. In
the year 2011, the defendant Aron Lichtenberger was arrested by police at the home which he
was sharing with her girlfriend, Karley Holmes. The officer Huston with an active warrant to
arrest determined that the Lichtenberger failed to register as sex offender and was removed from
his property. Later after his arrest, Holmes went to the bedroom and hacked Lichtenberger’s
personal laptop in which she found number of images related to child pornography. On seeing
such images she contacted the police officer and on his arrival she showed his laptop full of child
pornography images. The officer then obtained the warrant in respect of laptop and its contents
which caused charges against Lichtenberger.
According to the Fourth Amendment which establishes right of the people to be secure in
their houses, persons, paper, persons and effects against any kind of unreasonable searches and
seizures (Epps, 2017). Before the trial Lichtenberger contend that:
 The doctrine of private search, the protection is applicable to the government actions and
does not apply to private residences
 Her girlfriend Holmes acted as an agent for the Officer Huston
 The Officer Huston has exceeded the scope of its initial search
 The Officer on first instance did not have probable cause and warrant to search his
personal laptop

The Lichtenberg cited the United States v. Flores-Lopez, 2012 case in order to prove his point
that searching computer is invasive and not to be considered as akin to the search of a container
as contend by the government (Sherman, 2017). He stated that the search was not so intrusive
and thus, violated the defendant’s right stated in the Fourth Amendment. Further the government,
on contention made by the Lichtenberger that his girlfriend acted as an agent, argues that Officer
Huston during the arrest has not instructed his girlfriend to search home for the evidence. The
Officer Huston never affirmed or encouraged his girlfriend Holmes for private search. She
conducted the search because of his own curiosity.
The Lichtenberger contends that the government violated Fourth Amendment by
searching his personal laptop without any warrant and there was no such probable cause also
scope to search the laptop. The circuit split in order to determine whether the doctrine of private
search applies in the home. The Sixth Circuit later held that the doctrine of private seraph does
not apply to search of home. Further according to today’s decision this doctrine does not apply in
case of search of a computer even if the computer is in the home. Later the argument was made
in respect of the Sixth Amendment that though it has correctly adopted the scope of ‘virtual
certainty’ but has failed to apply such scope of test in the facts of the Lichtenberger case. Many
questions were raised in respect of the applicability of the Sixth Amendment (Etzioni, 2019). The
defendant, Lichtenberger initially contended to supress other evidence to which the government
argued that it did not present the other evidences during the trial. The topic which was solely
discussed before the district court (April 2014) was in respect of the suppression of the laptop. It
remains the sole issue on appeal. As per the judgement on 20 May, 2015 by the United States
Court of Appeal, which held that the police has violated the rights of defendant stated in the
Fourth Amendment by exceeding their scope to commit private search of computer files.
CONCLUSION
The above report examined the case study of United States v. Lichtenberg and its decision
which was decided on 2015 and held police responsible for the violation of Fourth Amendment
rights. The report has briefly discussed the court summary along with the arguments made by the
defendant as well as government.

REFERNCES
Books and Journals
Domino, J.C., 2018. Civil rights and liberties in the 21st century. Routledge.
Epps, D., 2017. Harmless Errors and Substantial Rights. Harv. L. Rev. 131. p.2117.
Etzioni, A., 2019. Law and society in a populist age: Balancing individual rights and the
common good. Bristol University Press.
Sherman, C.M., 2017. The Private Search Doctrine and Electronic Evidence: A New Approach
to Tailor the Fourth Amendment Exception in the Context of Personal Computers. U.
Dayton L. Rev. 42. p.307.