Reference no: EM131986697

Lonnie Oliver and others gained access to people’s names, Social Security numbers, and otherpersonal information to file for and receive unemployment benefits in their names. When Oliver wasarrested, he, confessed. His co-defendant then told police that Oliver kept a laptop and a box at theapartment of his girlfriend, Erica Armstrong. Police searched the box and obtained a warrant tosearch the laptop, and found evidence of Oliver’s criminal scheme. He filed a motion to suppress itall, claiming that it was “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The court denied the motion. Oliver appealed.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that the search was legal and theevidence was admissible. The private search doctrine legitimized the search of the box and theindependent source doctrine applied to the computer. Under the private search doctrine, when aprivate individual examines the contents of a closed container, a subsequent search of the containerby government officers does not constitute an unlawful search. Here, Armstrong looked through thebox before the police arrived. Under the independent source doctrine, evidence obtained through alegal, independent source need not be suppressed. Oliver’s co-defendant admitted using a laptop tofurther their scheme. Thus, police had an independent source.

Why was the evidence in the box crucial to the government’s prosecution of Oliver?