Mock Trial Cases 2025

US v Aaron

• Non Password Protected Laptop

• GF didnt use computer

• GF consented to the search of defendants computer

• Actual Authority: Yes, bc not password protected and never told she couldnt use it 

Trulock v Freeh

• Defendant and Third Party had separate password protected Laptops

• Actual Authority: No bc third party did not have access to the desktop even though it was the same computer

US v Buckner

• Defendants wife consented to search of computer that was on in a shared living space despite defendant not being present

• later revealed the computer was password protected but wasnt known at time of the search

• Apparent authority: Yes; computer was under wife’s name, it was on, shared living space, and fraudulent activity on computer gave wife apparent authority

US v Griswold

• Mother of defendant gave consent to search

• Police searched family PC in living room

• Police searched defedants pc (in his room) and bypassed password

• Actual Authority: No because password = locked, but mother had right to retrieve the laptop

• Apparent Authority: No bc mom did not have sufficient access to laptop, laptop was in private space, and police didnt inquire about her relationship with the laptop

US v Cole

• third party inputted computer password  fast, despite not knowing if it was their shared password or defendants old password

• defendant and third party had access to eachothers passwords

• third party sometimes accessed defendants desktop

• Actual Authority: Yes bc third party had access to deskptop

• Apparent Authority: Yes bc third party inputed password without any difficulty

US v Andrus

• Dad consented to search of defendant’s computer in his room

• dad said he went in the room often

• Apparent Authority: Yes bc had access to room and didn’t indicate need for questioning about dad’s relationship to the computer

• says that if password is not visible, other circumstances must be considered

US v Purcell

• girl said duffel bag and backpack was hers.

• bag had mens clothing

• police realized it wasnt her bag

• continued with the search of the backpack and found the defendants gun

• Apparent Authority: No bc after police found mens clothing ambiguity arised and therefore extinguished her authority

US v Kimoana

• friend stayed in hotel room with defendant

• police searched room and found defendants gun

• Actual + Apparent Authority: yes bc shared living space + joint access to room. Made clear room wasnt his but still had access

US v Waller

• Defendant lived w/ friends and kept his stuff there

• got arrested and and owner said they could search

• house was searched and found defendants firearm in luggage in a closet

• Actual Authority: No bc authority didnt extend to closed object

• Apparent Authority: No bc police didnt have enough evidence to conclude luggage belonged to home owner

US v Gardner

• Obtained consent to search phone belonging to defendant

• GF consented to the search of her white phone too by offering password

• white phone actually belonged to defendant

• Apparent Authority: yes bc saw gf using phone and knew the password