Learning Team IRAC Brief Essay Example for Free

Learning Team IRAC Brief EssayLearning Team B was tasked to pack the IRAC method of shield study analysis, and select one legal case from a current event that has taken place within the past ii years relevant to this weeks objectives. After selecting a current case, Learning Team B prepared a case brief apply the IRAC method. Learning Team B selected the United States v. Jones case, which was decided January 23, 2012. Learning Team B was besides tasked to provide an explanation of how the legal concepts in the United States v. Jones case could be applied within a business managerial setting. The giving medication issued a warrant to place a Global Positioning System on the personal vehicle of Jones to track any unlawful behavior. For 28 days, the government monitored 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 violation of the twenty-five percent Amendment m ay be in question. The question in this case is whether or not the vehicle that was fitted with the GPS is considered real or personal piazza. as well how is the vehicle subject to government surveillance only on public property? Could the vehicle be subject to the real or personal property laws protected under the stern Amendment? The question remains if the vehicle bottom of the inning be searched using the GPS only part of the time. The courts ruling distillery does not clearly define what the fourth amendment covers as real or personal property. The definition of the quarter Amendment is not completely clear on exactly what the real or personal property is defined as or if it is level-headed chance of concealing as defined by society or a court of law. The law protects level-headed first moments of privacy, however the Supreme Court has ref intentiond to provide a consistent explanation for what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable (Kerr, 2007, p. 503).The Four th Amendment can be applied to a business managerial setting by protecting doers rights to privacy somewhat. Any use of work property, including e-mail and lucre is subject to inspection by the company. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace if an employee has an office. If the employee is in thefront of the work environment conversations or anything in plain view can be subject to police search. According to Surveillance Self-Defense (2013), A big question in find out whether your expectation of privacy is reasonable and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have knowingly exposed something to another person or to the public at bounteous (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy). If a person is exposes intended personal information 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 first 10 amendments of the United States Constitutio n. The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (Gatewood, 2013, p. 1). The government can use GPS to track an individual movement if they believe a crime have been committed. If law enforcement wants to obtain a warrant for a GPS artifice to be installed on an individual car, he or she must(prenominal) be able to convince a judge that a crime has been committed. They must also provide the judge with information about the place that will 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 comply with two of the warrants restrictions. First, they did not install the GPS device 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 District of Columbia, as required by the condition of the warrant. The government installs the GPS device on the vehicle in a public park space in Maryland (McKenzie, 2002, p. 1). According to McKenzie (2002), the vehicle is an effect as the term 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 sure that his or her privacy is not ball upd in any way (McKenzie, 2002, p. 1).A public management can conduct a mixed-motive search of an employers workplace, seeking to nail evidence of worker misconduct, as well as evidence the worker has committed a crime. For example, a search of a computer of a worker who has been downloading child pornography implicates both personnel misconduct and criminal concern. Courts assessing whether to apply the OConnor reasonableness standard or the more traditional Fourth Amendment seem ing cause 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 competent workplace should not be frustrated simply because the similar misconduct that violates a government managements rule, and it is also illegal (Koster, 2007, p. 1).A lodge employer can conduct searches related to the workplace such as to find a missing file or to investigate workplace misconduct, in respectfulness 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 scope (Koster, 2007, p. 1).In George Orwells 1 984, the citizens of the dystopian, totalitarian country of Oceania are subjected to a grim reality of unceasing government surveillance. In difference, engineering is necessary to fulfill Orwells nightmare is far closer to fact than fiction. For example, the smart phone while using its GPS intent is an indispensable component for numerous road self-gratifications this global device has many of the same capabilities as 1984 feared telescreen.In the United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court of the United States cogitate that police violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution when they attached the GPS-enabled tracking device to the defendants vehicle and used it to monitor the cars movements for 28 days (Maryland justness Review, pg. 998). Jones highlights two uniquely prescientconcerns The impact of modern information-sharing technology on individual privacy, and what limits ought to be placed on Law enforcement from using such technology unrestricted by phy sical boundaries (Maryland Law Review, pg. 999).The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and held that without a warrant, the evocation of the GPS tracking 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 command a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets regardless of how the GPS tracking device is placed on the persons vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that todays surveillance technology is very advanced 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 generation of workers is very comfortable with advanced technology but still have the basic expectations of privacy that workers had 20 years ago. Companies can track email conversations, locate company smart phones using GPS technology, locate, and monitor routes of company vehicles, and even video tape activity 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 informed 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 monitoring at all times. If a company video monitors its employees, employees must sign an reference work understanding their movement with the organization is monitored and recorded during the business day. Advanced technology is a tool to reduce fraud in the workplace b ut 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 Criminal 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), 503-551. 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