Learning Team IRAC Brief Essay

study Team B was tasked to try out the IRAC method of quality study analysis, and select one legal case from a current horizontalt that has taken name within the past deuce years relevant to this weeks objectives. After selecting a current case, larn Team B prepared a case drawing exploitation the IRAC method. Learning Team B selected the join States v. Jones case, which was heady January 23, 2012. Learning Team B was also tasked to supply an explanation of how the legal concepts in the coupled States v. Jones case could be use within a line of merchandise managerial setting. The disposal give awayd a warrant to habitation a Global Positioning organization on the person-to-personized fomite of Jones to trail either unlawful behavior. For 28 days, the government monitor lizarded the vehicle and it subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges (United states v., 2012). The issue is that a colza of the fourth p art Amendment whitethorn be in question. The question in this case is whether or non the vehicle that was fitted with the GPS is considered accepted or personal plaza. in any case how is the vehicle subject to government control only on customary property? Could the vehicle be subject to the current or personal property laws defend under the quarter Amendment? The question be if the vehicle poop be assayed using the GPS only part of the time. The judicatures command still does not distinctly define what the fourth amendment covers as real or personal property. The definition of the quartern Amendment is not completely clear on exactly what the real or personal property is defined as or if it is mediocre prognosis of solitude as defined by society or a court of law. The law protects intelligent panoramas of privacy, just the despotic court has refused to set up a consistent explanation for what makes an view of privacy reason fitting (Kerr, 2007, p. 503).The poop Amendment ass be applied to a business managerial setting by defend contriveers rights to privacy somewhat. Any use of work property, including e-mail and Internet is subject to inspection by the confederacy. There is a reasonable arithmetic mean of privacy in the employment if an employee has an office. If the employee is in thefront of the work milieu conversations or anything in plain legal opinion can be subject to patrol search. agree to Surveillance Self-Defense (2013), A big question in ascertain whether your chance of privacy is reasonable and defend by the twenty-five percent Amendment arises when you have wittingly exposed something to another person or to the public at large (Reasonable foreboding of Privacy). If a person is exposes intended personal knowledge or property to a third party that reasonable expectation of privacy is no longer valid.The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is the archetypal 10 amendme nts of the United States validation. The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of the passel to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against reasonless searches and seizures (Gatewood, 2013, p. 1). The government can use GPS to traverse an soul movement if they believe a crime have been committed. If law enforcement wants to grasp a warrant for a GPS gismo to be installed on an individual car, he or she must be able to convince a judge that a crime has been committed. They must also provide the judge with information about the place that leave be searched, and the individual or thing to be seized (Hughes & Burton, 2013, p. 1).In this court case, the agents obtained a warrant, but they did not come after with two of the warrants restrictions. First, they did not install the GPS wile within the 10-day period that was required by the provision of the warrant. Second, the GPS device supposed to be installed in the vehicle in the order of Columbia, as requi red by the circumstance of the warrant. The government installs the GPS device on the vehicle in a public position space in Maryland (McKenzie, 2002, p. 1). According to McKenzie (2002), the vehicle is an effect as the terminus is used in the Amendment, and this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. An organization that use any form of GPS device on an individual vehicle would be violating the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to safeguard the rights of citizens, and to make legitimate that his or her privacy is not profaned in any way (McKenzie, 2002, p. 1).A public heed can lot a mixed-motive search of an employers workplace, want to discover evidence of doer misconduct, as well as evidence the thespian has committed a crime. For example, a search of a computer of a worker who has been downloading child pornography implicates both strength misconduct and criminal concern. dallys assessing whether to apply the OConnor reasonableness standard or the to a greater extent traditional Fourth Amendment probable arrive and warrant requirements of these mix-motive searches have applied OConnor, reasonableness standard. Certainly, as explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, OConnors objective of ensuring that an efficient workplace should not be frustrated simply because the sympathetic misconduct that violates a government managements rule, and it is also illegal (Koster, 2007, p. 1).A community employer can conduct searches connect to the workplace such as to puzzle a missing file or to investigate workplace misconduct, in residency with the Fourth Amendment without probable cause or a warrant. A job-related search is constitutionally allowable as long as they are reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, even if the search does infringe on a workers reasonable expectation of privacy, the search will deemed reasonable in accordance with the Fourth Amendment it is justified as its inception and permissible in circumstance (Koster, 2007, p. 1).In George Orwells 1984, the citizens of the dystopian, totalitarian rural of Oceania are subjected to a grim man of constant government surveillance. In difference, engine room is necessary to fulfill Orwells incubus is far closer to fact than fiction. For example, the flip phone succession using its GPS liaison is an indispensable component for numerous roadway commoves this global device has many of the very(prenominal) capabilities as 1984 feared telescreen.In the United States v. Jones, the independent Court of the United States concluded that guard violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution when they attached the GPS-enabled trailing device to the suspects vehicle and used it to monitor the cars movements for 28 days (Maryland law of nature Review, pg. 998). Jones highlights two uniquely prescientconcerns The impact of modern information-sharing applied science on individual privacy, and what limits ought to be placed on honor enforcement from using such applied science unrestricted by forcible boundaries (Maryland Law Review, pg. 999).The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the taste of the lower court and held that without a warrant, the knowledgeability of the GPS trailing device constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment (United states v., 2012). The government had argued a person did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets but the U.S. Supreme court rejected this argument. The U.S. Supreme court ruled a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets no matter of how the GPS tracking device is placed on the persons vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that straightaways surveillance technology is very sophisticated but still creates a physical intrusion into a persons reasonable expectation of privacy protected under the Fourth Amendment (United states v., 2012).This ruling is very important in todays business world as technology rapidly advances. The current coevals of workers is very comfortable with advanced technology but still have the elemental expectations of privacy that workers had 20 years ago. Companies can track email conversations, locate guild smart phones using GPS technology, locate, and monitor way of lifes of telephoner vehicles, and even video tape action mechanism at their locations. It is important that an organization brief and ensure each employee acknowledges the reasonable expectation of privacy policies. If a company issues a smart phone to an employee and employ GPS tracking on the phone, the employee must be cognizant his or her smart phone will be monitored. If a company installs GPS tracking devices on their vehicles the driver of that vehicle must be informed his or her route and movement is subject to company monitor at all times. If a company video monitors its employees, employees must sign an acknowledgment understanding their movement with the organization is monitored and put down during the business day. Advanced technology is a tool to reduce fraud in the workplace but cannot violate an employees right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.ReferencesGatewood, J. (2013). Its raining Katz and Jones The implications of United States v. Jones- A case of sound and fury. Pace Law Review, 33(2), 683-715. Retrieved from http//Web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com George Orwell Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1988, The Evolving Fourth Amendment United States vs. Jones, The information cloud, and the right to exclude, Ber An Pan, 1993 Hughes, T. & Burton, C. (2013). Police GPS surveillance on vehicles and the warrant Requirement For a while Ive been watching you steady. American Journal Of miserable Justice, 38(4), 535-550.doi10.1007/s12103-012-9185-z. Retrieved from http//web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com Kerr, O.S. (2007, November). Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 503-55 1. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/224069628?accountid=35812 McKenzie, D. (2002). What were they smoking? The Supreme Courts latest step in a long Strange trip through the Fourth Amendment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 93(1), 153. Retrieved from http//web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com Koster, P. R. (2007). Workplace searches by public employers and the Fourth Amendment. Urban Lawyer, 39(1). 75-84. Retrieved from http//web.ebscohost.comezproxy. Apollolibrary.com Surveillance Self-Defense. (2013). Retrieved from https//ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy U.S. Supreme Court, (2012). United states v. jones (No. 101259). Retrieved from website http//www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf