Greiner

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-appellant Paul Greiner was convicted by a jury of receiving and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 . On appeal, he challenges the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence gathered from (1) his employer’s remote monitoring of his workplace Internet activity and (2) the *542 subsequent search of his office computer by the FBI. For the reasons given below, we affirm.

Greiner contends that his employer’s remote monitoring of his workplace Internet activity violated his Fourth Amendment rights. As we have previously noted, “privacy expectations may be reduced if the user is advised that information transmitted through the network is not confidential and that the systems administrators may monitor communications transmitted by the user.” United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir.2007). The warning banner confronting Greiner every time he logged onto his computer gave him ample reason to be aware that his stored files and internet usage were subject to monitoring by his employer and disclosure to law enforcement personnel, and that by using the computer he was deemed to have consented to such…