Skip to content
Naked Security Naked Security

Yes, Geek Squad can search your files and hand you over to the police

Judge rules images found on a defendant's hard drive inadmissible - but bats away contention that he had an expectation of privacy when he passed his PC to Geek Squad

The government’s case against an alleged trafficker in child abuse images is on shaky ground after a California judge last week said that:

  1. An image found on his PC when it was in for repairs with Best Buy’s Geek Squad didn’t show a prepubescent girl’s genitals or that she was having sex. The image launched the case, a raid on his house in 2012, and the arrest of California gynecologist Mark Rettenmaier. Even though the still was taken from a well-known child abuse video, it doesn’t meet the legal definition of child porn, the judge said.
  2. FBI agents were disingenuous when they applied for a search warrant, leaving out a crucial detail of where Geek Squad employees had found the image that triggered the investigation.

According to OC Weekly, District Court Judge Cormac J Carney announced on May 15 that the FBI’s tainted search warrant required him to suppress alleged evidence collected during a raid on Rettenmaier’s house in 2012.

It all began in 2011, when Rettenmaier took his HP Pavilion computer to Best Buy for repair because it wouldn’t boot. When Geek Squad techs ran a search, they retrieved the deleted image of a young girl.

At issue is how the Geek Squad employees found that image. As the case has dragged on and documents have come to light, it turns out that the FBI has been in a relationship with Geek Squad workers that defense attorney James D Riddet has called “cozy” and “so extensive that it turns searches by Best Buy into government searches”.

In fact, unbeknownst to customers such as Rettenmaier, for years, the FBI has trained and paid Geek Squad employees to search for child abuse imagery on computer equipment. Those searches have been extensive: Geek Squad employees have gone so far as to search unallocated space on hard drives – ie, the place where forensics analysts use specialized software to find and retrieve deleted files.

Judge Carney last week called agents “dishonest” because when they were applying for a search warrant, they neglected to mention just where, exactly, on the PC that the image in question came from. In fact, it came from unallocated space: a problem for the prosecutors in their case against Rettenmaier.

As it is, a few weeks before Rettenmaier was arrested, federal judges had ruled in a separate case that child abuse images found in unallocated space couldn’t be used to win a possession conviction, since there’s almost no way to figure out who put them there, who viewed them, or when/why they were deleted.

Even a technical expert for the prosecutors conceded in court that dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of sex images can be uploaded without the knowledge of those surfing the internet. Those images can be discovered only with special software, the expert said in a hearing with Judge Carney, according to OC Weekly.

In addition, whether or not Geek Squad City technicians acted as government agents by accepting FBI payments, regularly speaking with FBI agents (on a first-name basis) and referring cases to them, and working with them to create a program to search for abuse images, has been core to determining whether their searches are permissible as evidence.

That’s because government agents need to first get a warrant, based on probable cause, to search a computer. Otherwise, Fourth Amendment issues around search and seizure come into play, as does the question of privacy violation, potentially turning Geek Squad technicians’ scouring of computers into warrantless searches by law enforcement.

According to the court documents in USA v. Mark Rettenmaier, the FBI has been paying Best Buy supervisors for the work, and management has been fully aware of it. The bureau has also been guiding Geek Squad technicians as they develop a program to find abusive content.

Although Judge Carney’s ruling that evidence was inadmissible was a win for Rettenmaier’s defense lawyer, the judge didn’t go along with Riddet’s contention that his client had a legal expectation of privacy from Geek Squad employees searching his computer.

Judge Carney ruled that the Geek Squad search was legitimate since the defendant had signed a contract that contains a warning that illegal material will be reported. The doctor also verbally consented to an engineer checking his hard drive, The Register reports.

Riddet said his client would be contesting the legality of the search, but that it’s now up to prosecutors to decide whether the case will proceed. OC Weekly quotes him:

We’re going to have to wait until January or February 2018 to see what the government is going to do.


7 Comments

Well I’m sorry if you have child porn on your computer something is not right with you in the first place

Completely agree Mark, the argument here though, is because it is in non allocated space, the image could have easily come from someone else if that laptop (or even HDD within the laptop) is second hand. Most people do not wipe their HDDs properly when reselling them onto someone else.

Yes, but that thing that is wrong could just be poor security. There was a worm years ago that served as a hosting platform for illegal file distribution, storing data on infected machines and using them as seeds for the files (limewire maybe? I forget now). If you managed to get infected your could unwittingly play host to all kinds of nasty stuff, up to and including child porn.

I know someone personally who inadvertently left their wireless network open, and wound up with one of the neighbors using their PC as a file repository. In this case there was nothing truly illegal (mostly just music, which may or may not have been legally purchased), but someone savvy enough to hide their tacks when it comes to child porn has a decent chance of being savvy enough to exploit a neighbors open network to acquire and store their illegal images.

I do not trust most prosecutors to honestly try and identify an innocent victim in the face of an easy conviction.

Reread paragraph 1. The image did not show her genitals, and did not show her having sex, and in fact came from a widely publicised video. There is no case to answer.

Absolutely, and if you have things on your computer that prove you are planning a terrorist attack, same thing. Also, any kind of research you might be doing into chemical or biological weapons.

I think that we should all allow our computers to be monitored 24/7

I worked for Geek Squad. And the truth is if it’s in plain sight like the desktop. We have to report it. But I’ve never opened a folder that I didn’t need to access there’s no need and/or time.

I hope the attorneys for people in this are checking the dates on the files. I deleted directories 01 – 34 and over 100 gigs of geek squad aquired data from a guys laptop a couple years ago at the library. He was upset because his storage disappeared. I thought they used his drive to back up another customers​ data, now I wonder.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to get the latest updates in your inbox.
Which categories are you interested in?