United States v. Ziegler
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
474 F.3d 1184 (2007)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Jeffrey Ziegler (defendant) worked for Frontline Processing (Frontline). Frontline got a tip that Ziegler was looking at child pornography on his Frontline-owned computer. Under Frontline’s internet-technology (IT) policy, the company monitored its employees’ use of the internet. Frontline’s IT administrator confirmed that an employee had accessed child-pornography websites and used Ziegler’s internet protocol address to determine that Ziegler was the employee. After a discussion with an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Frontline unlocked and entered Ziegler’s office and made copies of his hard drive. Ziegler’s office was private and kept locked. Soon after these copies were made, Frontline’s corporate counsel informed the FBI that a warrant would not be necessary in the investigation. Frontline turned over Ziegler’s Frontline computer to the FBI. Ziegler was charged with three counts related to child pornography. Ziegler filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of his Frontline computer. The district court denied the motion, ruling that Ziegler did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his Frontline computer. Ziegler appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.