United States v. Ricardo Castillo, Jr., No. 22-1195 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found on defendant's work laptop by his former employer and a digital forensic expert as those people were not agents of the government for Fourth Amendment purposes, and defendant had no expectation of privacy in his work computer under his employer's policies.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1195 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Ricardo Castillo, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________ Submitted: August 10, 2022 Filed: August 15, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ricardo Castillo, Jr., appeals after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court1 erred by denying his motion to suppress. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Castillo did not show that the head of security for his former employer and the digital forensics expert who conducted a forensic examination of his work computer should be deemed agents of the government for Fourth Amendment purposes. See United States v. Ringland, 966 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Weist, 596 F.3d 906, 910 (8th Cir. 2010). We agree with the district court that Castillo did not show that the two private individuals acted solely or primarily with the intent to assist law enforcement or that the government directed them to search the computer. See Ringland, 966 F.3d at 736; United States v. Highbull, 894 F.3d 988, 992-93 (8th Cir. 2018). We also agree that Castillo did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his work laptop, as his employer’s policies informed him that he should not expect such privacy. See Biby v. Bd. of Regents, of Univ. of Neb., 419 F.3d 845, 850-51 (8th Cir. 2005). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
