F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 22 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-6097
ERIC NEIL ANGEVINE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Western District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. 00-CR-106-M)
Randal A. Sengel (Daniel G. Webber, Jr., United States Attorney, with him on the
brief), Assistant United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Michael D. Scheitzach (Richard W. Anderson with him on the briefs), Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and EBEL,
Circuit Judge.
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
Eric Neil Angevine conditionally pled guilty to knowing possession of child
pornography. On appeal, Professor Angevine argues the district court (1)
improperly denied his motion to suppress images of child pornography seized
from his Oklahoma State University computer, and (2) incorrectly applied the
sentencing guidelines in determining his sentence. Our jurisdiction arises from 28
U.S.C. § 1291. For reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
BACKGROUND
Professor Angevine taught Architecture at Oklahoma State University.
Pursuant to his employment, the University provided Professor Angevine an
office computer. This computer was networked with other University computers
and in turn was linked to computers around the world via the Internet. Professor
Angevine used this computer to download over 3,000 pornographic images of
young boys. After viewing the images and printing some of them, Professor
Angevine deleted the pornographic files.
With the cooperation of Professor Angevine’s wife, officers from the
Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department obtained a search warrant to look for
child pornography on his University computer. Police seized the computer from
Professor Angevine’s office and turned it over to a police computer expert.
-2-
Although Professor Angevine attempted to erase the pornographic files, the
computer expert used special technology to retrieve the data that had remained
latent in the computer’s memory.
After police arrested Professor Angevine, he submitted a motion to
suppress the pornographic images seized from the University computer. Professor
Angevine also submitted a motion arguing the search warrant used to seize the
computer was invalid because police recklessly omitted material information in
their application affidavit. To address these omissions, Professor Angevine asked
for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The district
court held the computer-use policies and procedures at Oklahoma State University
prevented Professor Angevine from having a legitimate expectation of privacy in
the data on the seized University computer. Accordingly, the district court held a
Franks hearing was unnecessary since police did not need a search warrant to
seize the University computer. The district court also denied Professor
Angevine’s motion to suppress the images found on the University computer.
Subsequently, Professor Angevine conditionally pled guilty to knowing
possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
Under his plea agreement, Professor Angevine retained the right to appeal the
-3-
denial of his suppression motion. However, Professor Angevine waived the right
to appeal his sentence calculation unless the district court departed upward from
the sentencing guidelines or controlling precedent relevant to the case
subsequently developed.
Oklahoma State University has a computer policy that explains appropriate
computer use, warns employees about the consequences of misuse, and describes
how officials administer and monitor the University computer network. Initially,
the policy maintains “[t]he contents of all storage media owned or stored on
University computing facilities are the property of [the] University.” The policy
prohibits employees from using University computers to “access obscene material
as defined by Oklahoma or federal law.” The policy warns viewing obscene
materials may result in “disciplinary action up to and including discharge,
dismissal, ... and/or legal action.” Providing for enforcement, the policy states:
[T]he University reserves the right to view or scan any file or
software stored on the computer or passing through the network, and
will do so periodically ... to audit the use of University resources.
Violation[s] of policy that come to the attention of University
officials during these and other activities will be acted upon.... The
University cannot guarantee confidentiality of stored data. Users
should be aware that use of one of the data networks, such as the
Internet, and electronic mail and messages, will not necessarily
remain confidential from third parities outside the University in
transit or on the destination computer system, as those data networks
are configured to permit fairly easy access to transmissions.
-4-
The University policy also explains system administrators keep logs of file names
which “may indicate why a particular data file is being erased, when it was
erased, and what user identification has erased it.” Furthermore, the policy
provides when University officials believe an employee is violating state or
federal law “and that access to an individual’s data is required in order to conduct
an internal investigation into such possibility, system administrators may monitor
all the activities of and inspect the files of such specified user(s) on their
computers and networks.” To this effect, the University policy claims a “right of
access to the contents of stored computing information at any time for any
purpose which it has a legitimate ‘need to know’” including access to “word
processing equipment, personal computers, workstations, mainframes,
minicomputers, and associated peripherals and software.”
Additionally, Oklahoma State University officials posted a “splash screen”
on University computers. Each time Professor Angevine turned on the computer
in his office a banner appeared. This banner stated:
Use of this computing system in any way contrary to applicable
Federal or State statutes or the policies of Oklahoma State University
or Computing and Information Services is prohibited and will make
you subject to University disciplinary actions, including possible
immediate termination, and may also subject you to criminal
penalties.
Under Oklahoma law, all electronic mail messages are
-5-
presumed to be public records and contain no right of privacy or
confidentiality except where Oklahoma or Federal statutes expressly
provide for such status. The University reserves the right to inspect
electronic mail usage by any person at any time without prior notice
as deemed necessary to protect business-related concerns of the
University to the full extent not expressly prohibited by applicable
statutes.
Professor Angevine now appeals the denial of his suppression motion and
again asks for a Franks hearing challenging the validity of the police search
warrant. Professor Angevine also appeals the calculation of his sentence.
DISCUSSION
I.
Professor Angevine argues the district court erred in failing to suppress
child pornography seized from an Oklahoma State University computer.
Specifically, Professor Angevine argues the district court incorrectly held he had
no “expectation of privacy in his office computer because his employer,
Oklahoma State University, had a computer use and Internet policy that allowed
[the University] a ‘right of access’ on a ‘need to know basis.’” In reviewing the
district court’s refusal to grant a suppression motion, “we accept the district
court’s factual findings absent clear error and review de novo the district court’s
determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v.
Olguin-Rivera, 168 F.3d 1203, 1204 (10th Cir. 1999).
-6-
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. To establish a Fourth Amendment violation,
the defendant must prove “a legitimate expectation of privacy” in the place
searched or the item seized. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978).
“Determining whether a legitimate ... expectation of privacy exists ... involves
two inquiries. First, the defendant must show a subjective expectation of privacy
in the area searched, and second, that expectation must be one that society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable.” United States v. Anderson, 154 F.3d 1225,
1229 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citations omitted). cert. denied, 526
U.S. 1159 (1999). “The ultimate question is whether one’s claim to privacy from
the government intrusion is reasonable in light of all the surrounding
circumstances.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 1
We address employees’ expectations of privacy in the workplace on a case-
by-case basis. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 718 (1987). “Within the
workplace context, [the Supreme Court] has recognized that employees may have
1
Because we conclude society is not prepared to recognize as reasonable
an expectation of privacy in the seized University computer, we need not consider
whether Professor Angevine himself had a subjective expectation of privacy.
-7-
a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police.” Id. at 716.
However, “[p]ublic employees’ expectations of privacy ... may be reduced by
virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation.” Id.
at 717. Additional factors we consider include: “(1) the employee’s relationship
to the item seized; (2) whether the item was in the immediate control of the
employee when it was seized; and (3) whether the employee took actions to
maintain his privacy in the item.” Anderson, 154 F.3d at 1232.
Oklahoma State University policies and procedures prevent its employees
from reasonably expecting privacy in data downloaded from the Internet onto
University computers. The University computer-use policy reserved the right to
randomly audit Internet use and to monitor specific individuals suspected of
misusing University computers. The policy explicitly cautions computer users
that information flowing through the University network is not confidential either
in transit or in storage on a University computer. Under this policy, reasonable
Oklahoma State University computer users should have been aware network
administrators and others were free to view data downloaded from the Internet.
The policy also explicitly warned employees legal action would result from
violations of federal law. Furthermore, the University displayed a splash screen
warning of “criminal penalties” for misuse and of the University’s right to
-8-
conduct inspections to protect business-related concerns. These office practices
and procedures should have warned reasonable employees not to access child
pornography with University computers.
Professor Angevine’s relationship to the University computer also does not
suggest a reasonable expectation of privacy. “‘Although ownership of the item[s]
seized is not determinative, it is an important consideration in determining the
existence and extent of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment interests.’” Anderson,
154 F.3d at 1231 (quoting United States v. Erwin, 875 F.2d 268, 270-71 (10th Cir.
1989)). The University explicitly reserved ownership of not only its computer
hardware, but also the data stored within. Professor Angevine does not dispute
Oklahoma State University owned the computer and the pornographic data he
stored on it. Because the computer was issued to Professor Angevine only for
work related purposes, his relationship to the University computer was incident to
his employment. Reasonable people in Professor Angevine’s employment context
would expect University computer policies to constrain their expectations of
privacy in the use of University-owned computers.
Additionally, the pornographic images seized by police were not within
Professor Angevine’s immediate control. The Supreme Court found a reasonable
-9-
expectation of privacy in seized records where an employee “had custody of the
papers at the moment of their seizure.” Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 369
(1968). Unlike Mancusi, Professor Angevine did not have access to the seized
data because he had previously attempted to delete the files from the University
computer’s memory. Police only recovered the data through special technology
unavailable to Professor Angevine.
Finally, Professor Angevine did not take actions consistent with
maintaining private access to the seized pornography. We are reluctant to find a
reasonable expectation of privacy where the circumstances reveal a careless effort
to maintain a privacy interest. Anderson, 154 F.3d at 1232. Professor Angevine
downloaded child pornography through a monitored University computer network.
University policy clearly warned computer users such data is “fairly easy to
access” by third parties. The policy explained network administrators actively
audit network transmissions for such misuse. While Professor Angevine did
attempt to erase the child pornography, the University computer policy warned
system administrators kept file logs recording when and by whom files were
deleted. Moreover, given his transmission of the pornographic data through a
monitored University network, deleting the files alone was not sufficient to
establish a reasonable expectation of privacy.
-10-
Although we have found a reasonable expectation of privacy in information
stored within offices, United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 598 (10th Cir. 1988),
we have never held the Fourth Amendment protects employees who slip obscene
computer data past network administrators in violation of a public employer’s
reasonable office policy. Considering “all of the relevant circumstances,”
Anderson, 154 F.3d at 1232, we hold Professor Angevine could not have an
objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s denial of the motion for a Franks hearing and motion to suppress.
II.
Next, Professor Angevine argues the district court erred when it applied an
incorrect guideline in calculating his sentence. The government counters
Professor Angevine waived the right to appeal his sentence pursuant to a plea
agreement. “A defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the statutory right to
appeal his sentence is generally enforceable.” United States v. Black, 201 F.3d
1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). As a
threshold matter, Professor Angevine does not point to “public policy constraints”
that suggest we should refuse to enforce his waiver. Id. at 1301. Rather, he
argues two exceptions included in his plea agreement allow this appeal:
(i) defendant specifically does not waive the right to appeal an
upward departure from the sentencing guideline range determined by
-11-
the Court to apply to this case, and (ii) his waiver of rights to appeal
... shall not apply to appeals or challenges based on changes in the
law reflected in Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court cases decided after
the date of this agreement which are held by the Tenth Circuit or
Supreme Court to have retroactive effect.
(Emphasis added.)
Professor Angevine argues he has not waived his right to appeal his
sentence because the district court made an “upward departure by analogy.”
However, Professor Angevine cites no case law, and we can find none, supporting
this theory. The district court did not apply an upward departure to Professor
Angevine’s sentence. After determining United States Sentencing
Guideline 2G2.2 applied to this case, the district court sentenced Professor
Angevine to fifty-one months. Professor Angevine does not dispute this sentence
is within the normal punishment range for U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. 2
Professor Angevine also contends our decision in United States v. Neal,
249 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2001), represents a retroactive change in the law
applicable to his case. In Neal we upheld a sentencing court’s upward departure.
2
Professor Angevine also argues because the plea agreement does not
specify a punishment range his waiver was involuntary. This argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Rubio, 231 F.3d 709, 712 (10th Cir. 2000) (finding
waiver knowing and voluntary where agreement lacked “a definitive sentence or
sentencing range”).
-12-
Id. at 1259. In this case, the district court did not depart from the guideline it
determined was applicable. Professor Angevine’s plea agreement explicitly
grants the district court the power to determine the applicable guideline. Because
we choose to enforce Professor Angevine’s plea agreement, we do not reach the
merits of his objection to the district court’s sentencing calculation. 3
For the forgoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Professor Angevine’s
motion to suppress is AFFIRMED. Professor Angevine’s appeal of the
calculation of his sentence is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
3
In the alternative, Professor Angevine failed to supply the record
necessary for us to consider the merits of the district court’s sentencing
calculation. Our rules provide, “[t]he presentence investigation report must be
included if the appeal is from a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.” 10th
Cir. R.10.3(D)(3). Moreover, “[w]hen the party asserting an issue fails to provide
a record sufficient for considering that issue, the court may decline to consider
it.” 10th Cir. R.10.3(B). Professor Angevine asserts the district court applied an
incorrect sentencing guideline, but includes only two pages of the presentence
investigation report upon which the district court made its decision. Moreover
Professor Angevine includes only two pages of the plea agreement. In this case,
we decline to upset a knowing and voluntary plea agreement upon consideration
of an insufficient record.
-13-