Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Officer Pierucci had lawful access to the cards. Pierucci could search the envelope and read the cards pursuant to the terms of the warrant, which permitted the seizure of cards in the names of Ogans or Joseph Williams. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). Because the incriminating nature of the cards was immediately apparent to Pieruc-ci, the plain view doctrine justified their seizure. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). The fact that Officer DeJesus viewed the cards prior to Pierucci did not render the search unlawful. See United States v. Ewain, 88 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). DeJesus’ request that his supervisor also
holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence holding that another pair of eyes does not add to the loss of privacy of a person whose things have been examined pursuant to a warrant holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding that computer users do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their bulletin board subscriber information because they have conveyed it to another person holding that the exclusionary rule is available only to the person whose constitutional rights were violated in the gathering of challenged evidence the remedy for violation of the privacy act is vested by statute in the individual whose records were improperly released not in a third party criminal defendant against whom the records are used