Learning Team IRAC Brief Essay

Learning aggroup B was tasked to study the IRAC method of case study analysis, and select wholeness legal case from a current veritable(a)t that has taken come in within the past two years relevant to this weeks objectives. After selecting a current case, Learning Team B on the watch a case brief using the IRAC method. Learning Team B selected the unify States v. Jones case, which was decided January 23, 2012. Learning Team B was also tasked to im single-valued function an explanation of how the legal concepts in the coupled States v. Jones case could be utilise within a business managerial view. The government uncoverd a secure to place a Global Positioning System on the own(prenominal) vehicle of Jones to track any unlawful behavior. For 28 days, the government superviseed the vehicle and it subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges ( fall in states v., 2012). The issue is that a violation of the one-quarter Amen dment may be in promontory. The question in this case is whether or not the vehicle that was fitted with the GPS is considered reliable or somebodyal property.Also how is the vehicle subject to government surveillance entirely on public property? Could the vehicle be subject to the real or personal property laws defend under the poop Amendment? The question remains if the vehicle jakes be searched using the GPS only part of the time. The merelyterflys ruling still does not clearly find what the fourth amendment covers as real or personal property. The definition of the fourthly Amendment is not completely clear on exactly what the real or personal property is defined as or if it is sightly outlook of covert as defined by society or a mash of law. The law protects fairish expectations of privacy, but the compulsive judiciary has refused to submit a consistent explanation for what makes an expectation of privacy comely (Kerr, 2007, p. 503).The quaternary Amendmen t drop be applied to a business managerial setting by protecting mildewers by rightss to privacy somewhat. Any use of work property, including electronic mail and Internet is subject to inspection by the participation. 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 long question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is reasonable and saved by the ordinal Amendment arises when you take a leak knowingly exposed something to another person or to the public at large (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy). If a person is exposes intended personal in relieve oneselfation or property to a third base party that reasonable expectation of privacy is no longer valid.The twenty-five percent Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution. 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 figurehead if they believe a aversion have been committed. If law enforcement wants to obtain a warrant for a GPS ruse to be assembleed on an individual car, he or she moldiness be able to convince a judge that a crime has been committed. They must also provide the judge with information about the place that pull up stakes 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 twisting within the 10-day period that was required by the provision of the warrant. Second, the GPS device supposed to be installed in the v ehicle 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 parking space in medico (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 face 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 violated in any way (McKenzie, 2002, p. 1).A public prudence can conduct a mixed-motive search of an employers workplace, seeking to check evidence of thespian 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 fell concern. apostrophizes assessing whether to apply the OConnor reasonableness standard or the more traditionalistic Fourth Amendment seeming 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 efficient workplace should not be foreclose simply because the similar 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 much(prenominal) as to find a missing institutionalize or to investigate workplace misconduct, in compliance 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 Amendme nt it is justified as its inception and permissible in scope (Koster, 2007, p. 1).In George Orwells 1984, the citizens of the dystopian, totalitarian country of Oceania are subjected to a grim universe of constant government surveillance. In difference, technology is necessary to fulfill Orwells nightmare is far closer to fact than fiction. For example, the smart call back trance using its GPS function is an indispensable component for numerous road trips this ball-shaped device has many of the same capabilities as 1984 feared telescreen.In the United States v. Jones, the exacting Court of the United States concluded that police violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution when they attached the GPS-enabled bring in device to the defendants vehicle and used it to monitor the cars movements for 28 days (Maryland police force Review, pg. 998). Jones highlights two uniquely prescientconcerns The impact of modern information-sharing technology on individual pr ivacy, and what limits ought to be placed on Law enforcement from using such technology unrestricted by physical boundaries (Maryland Law Review, pg. 999).The U.S. overbearing Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and held that without a warrant, the installation 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 ruled 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 misdemeanour into a persons reasonable expectation of privacy protected under the Fourth Amendment (United states v., 2012).This ruling is very eventful in today s business world as technology promptly 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 device 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 acknowledgment understanding their movement with the org anization is monitored and recorded during the business day. Advanced technology is a tool to flash back 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 demand For a while Ive been watching you steady. American ledger 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 fr om http//search.proquest.com/docview/224069628?accountid=35812 McKenzie, D. (2002). What were they smoking? The Supreme Courts latest step in a long gothic 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). study 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