In just two years, the number of households that had one or more computers increased by nine percent, from 42 percent in 1998 to 51 percent (Cogar, 11). In addition to an increase in the use of computers for word processing, games, and maintaining financial accounts, there was an increase in the use of computers to commit or plan crimes, or to communicate with like-minded people. Questions have arisen regarding the handling of searches and seizures of computers and equipment when can officers search an office without a warrant?, how should an officer search a home computer, and what should (s)he list on the search warrant?, who can authorise a search of a shared computer?, how do officers obtain information from an internet service provider? As a result, the courts of the United States have had to determine how the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures of computers, peripherals, and information obtained and maintained by Internet Service Providers or ISPs (11).
              The author of the article I reviewed, "Obtaining Admissible Evidence from Computers and Internet Service Providers," a lawyer, reviews expectations of privacy while in the workplace, including when a search warrant is required, and when law enforcement officers may proceed with a warrantless search. Mr Cogar suggests questions an officer should ask employers before proceeding with a warrantless office search.
              The article then discusses how the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures of computers in the home. Most internet crimes are not committed at work, rather at home (12). Mr Cogar indicates that law enforcement officers must tread carefully if utilising the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement, as one viewing only one document that may be used as evidence does not necessarily permit search or seizure of the entire computer (13). Additionally, officers completing search warrants for computer equipment must remember to list any and all peripherals they need to seize, including make, model, colour, serial number, and only if probable cause exists to believe evidence of crime is stored on them, or they were used in commission of a crime (13). Any information obtained from informants stating that they (may have) communicated via internet to purchase controlled substances or stolen property should be listed on their probable cause statement, indicating the computer is not lawfully held property but a piece of evidence to a crime (13).
              When two or more people share a computer, a user may consent to search of password-protected files only if they normally have access to them. Additionally, while someone may consent to the search of shared living space, this does not constitute permission to search a computer contained therein (13).
              Internet Services Providers (ISPs) have access to a large amount of personal information, including name, phone number, and billing information (credit card numbers or checking account numbers, e.g.). The ISP can be a useful source for police looking for someone they know only by screen name (in a chat room for example) (13). Information that may be obtained from ISPs is considered noncontent information, meaning it does not divulge the contents of emails, files transferred, etc; noncontent information things such as telephone numbers dialled, websites visited, and account information (14). Noncontent information is considered voluntarily turned over to a third party, and not subject to expectations of privacy, according to the Fourth Circuit Court (14).
              An article more than a decade old, from the June 1993 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, indicates this is not a new problem, with an article titled "Computer Searches and Seizures: Challenges for Investigators" (Sauls 1-12). This article supports what Mr Cogar wrote regarding a sufficient description of the system on the search warrant, adding further that if a serail number is unavailable the warrant should directly indicate that, stating something to the effect of "a computer terminal...of unknown make or model" (4).
              The article by Mr Cogar was appears well-written and researched, and he seems rather knowledgeable on the topic. I understand space restrictions imposed by publications, but would have liked Mr Cogar to cover more on the execution of search warrants, and searching the system. The title of the article is slightly misleading, as the article mainly focuses on obtaining the computer and peripherals than on obtaining the actual information contained on the computer.
              I selected this article in particular because of availability, mainly. I am interested in computers, and this was the only article I could find at the time I searched. If I was to select again, I would choose the supporting article, by J.G. Sauls, as it covers the actual retrieval of the evidence in greater detail.
              This article is good for officers who are going to be preparing or executing search warrants, but for officers who need information on what their limitations are when it comes to how much information they are permitted to retrieve, the article is not going to be any help. Others who may be interested in the article are those like myself, interested in computers and seek general knowledge on the legality of searching and/or seizing them.
              To summarise, Mr Cogar wrote about searches and seizures relating to computers, peripherals, and ISPs. He covered steps an officer must take to legally seize equipment. I found the article well written but contend it was misnomered, as the article is more on obtaining the hardware than files for evidence. I highly recommend the article for those applying for and executing warrants, but not for anyone who needs to know his or her limitations in searching. Overall, I found the article informative, but not particularly helpful.