@Iain Michael Gumby
" The defense lawyer is arguing that because the FBI pays a reward for the tip, the tech is acting as an agent of the FBI therefore he's doing a search on the behalf of the FBI and without a warrant. This fails the sniff test. Imagine you invite a police officer in to your house and there's a kilo of coke sitting on the coffee table. The officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest you because the cocaine is in plain sight. "
OK, but now imagine the kilo of coke is in an unlocked box with its lid closed on the sideboard. If the cop opens the box, that's warrantless search. What justification is there for the Best Buy technician to be looking at the customer's images, particularly ones that were in "unallocated space"? If there was no justification to see it, there's the possibility of that being a warrantless search.
A rather interesting point is that the FBI is paying $500 for the reporting of things that people are legally obligated to report, and (in this case, at least) that people encounter incidentally in the course of their paid employment. Why is there any money at all?
This is why I think it sounds a lot like incitement to fishing. I'm pretty convinced this would be a problem in modern Europe, but the US legal system retains many traits inherited from 19th century jurisprudence that most European countries have already eliminated.