there was no illegal warrantless search when law enforcement agents used LimeWire to access child pornography files on the defendant’s computer because the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those files); cf. United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196, 1205 (10th Cir.2008) (concluding that a defendant who utilized peer-to-peer software so as to allow other users to access at least certain folders in his computer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information given to his internet provider). As the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted: “One who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking.” United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 843 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 18] This argument might have been
holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files holding stults had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files that the fbi retrieved from his personal computer where stults admittedly installed and used limewire to make his files accessible to others for file sharing one who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking