Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Rupnick

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 16, 2005No. 92,193Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFarland, C.J.

I agree with the majority that probable cause and exigent circumstances excused the warrantless seizure of the defendant’s computer. I further agree with the majority’s conclusion that, as a general rule, a warrant is required to search the contents of a computer hard drive.

I disagree, however, that a warrant was required for the search in this case. I would hold that the defendant’s voluntary admissions that he had Harrah’s documents in his laptop computer effectively revealed the incriminating contents of the computer hard drive, waiving any privacy interest he had in those documents stored…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Horton v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Smith v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Kyllo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Arkansas v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API