No. 14-5123 Page 10 Huff, et al. v. Spaw Exposure need not be deliberate and instead can be the inadvertent product of neglect. Under the plain-view doctrine, if a homeowner neglects to cover a window with drapes, he would lose his reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a viewer looking into the window from outside of his property. People v. Wright, 242 N.E. 2d 180, 184 (Ill. 1968); see also California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 214–15 (1980) (holding that policemen who observed the inside of a defendant’s fenced-in property from a location that was open to the public did not violate the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy). The doctrine applies to auditory as well as visual information. United States v. Fisch, 474 F.2d 1071, 1077 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 921 (1973) (holding that defendants did not exhibit an expectation of privacy to statements that were “audible to the naked ear” of police in an adjoining hotel room). The Supreme Court limited the plain-view doctrine in Kyllo v. United States, holding that a drug grower did not “expose” heat emanating from his home by failing to take steps to prevent police from using thermal-imaging technology that was not in general public use to observe his in-home activities. 533 U.S. 27, 40 (2001). However, Kyllo would not apply where a person inadvertently broadcasts an activity to outsiders through commonly available telecommunications technology that he controls—for instance, if a drug grower advertises his illegal in-home activities to police by inadvertently leaving on his webcam.5 Similarly, a person exposes his activities and statements, thereby failing to exhibit an expectation of privacy, if he inadvertently shares his activities and statements through neglectful use of a common telecommunication device. In United States v. Ganoe, a law-enforcement agent discovered the defendant’s childpornography files via LimeWire, a peer-to-peer file-sharing program that the defendant had installed on his computer. 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008). The defendant moved to suppress the child-pornography evidence as being the fruit of a warrantless search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the defendant “failed to demonstrate an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept as reasonable” because “he opened up his download folder to the world.” Id. at 1127 (emphasis added). 5 Importantly, LimeWire Nor would a person have a private right of action under Title III against third parties if he inadvertently used a webcam to broadcast his in-home activities to those third parties. See, e.g., AMERICAN PIE (Universal Pictures 1999).