Cybercrime Law and Investigations

This article discusses the constitutional meaning of search, United States v Kyllo and United States v Bah, United States v Jarrett, United States v Adjani, and United States v Hunter in Cybercrime Law and Investigations. It also provides solved assignments, essays, and dissertations related to the subject.

Running head: CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
Cybercrime Law and Investigations
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
Table of Contents
1. Constitutional Meaning of “Search”............................................................................................2
2. Discussion on “United States v Kyllo and United States v Bah”................................................2
3. Discussion of United States v Jarrett...........................................................................................3
4. Discussion of United States v Adjani..........................................................................................4
5. Discussion of United States v Hunter..........................................................................................4
References........................................................................................................................................6

2CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
1. Constitutional Meaning of “Search”
In the recent past years, it has been discussed that law courts have called upon on the
application for the Fourth Amendment Law based on police conduct. A careful reading and
understanding over the language prescribed under the Fourth Amendment describes the fact that
unreasonable searches are meant to be prohibited. Before reaching on the issue related to
reasonableness, the defendant should be able to prove that an activity of search had occurred
(Erickson & LaFave, 1980). This activity of search in accordance to the Fourth Amendment is
mainly been conducted by the concerns of the government and mostly by the police in case
certain critical activities have been performed within the country.
In case the defendant would be able to prove that the existence of a search and state
action had occurred, the police would be held towards the standard of Fourth Amendment based
on reasonableness. The text prescribed within the amendment have suggested a way towards the
meeting of the standard based on execution of the search based on the certain warrant (Renan,
2016). One another way was based on the requirement that the activity of search would fit within
one of the exceptions to the requirement of warrant or that the certain case would provide a rise
towards a new exception to the requirements of the warrant.
2. Discussion on “United States v Kyllo and United States v Bah”
According to the discussions presented within the Kyllo v United States, and in United
States v Bah, the courts had primarily struggled towards expecting over privacy and further
discussing whether searches had been conducted (Newton, 2015). The courts had primarily

3CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
struggled for the major purpose of addressing whether the efforts of law enforcement were being
able to access the real time GPS information and other facts in relation to cellular location.
According to the Fourth Amendment, they state the fact the basic rights of the people
should be made secure in different areas such as papers, persons, effects and on paper. Although
the Supreme Court have provided some form of guidance, it has become reluctant for the
clarification over the role played by the Fourth Amendment in discussing the limiting access
provided for GPS data.
The discussion were further resolved based on discussion over the implications of law
enforcement. The conclusion has been supported with a methodology employed by the courts
and comparison made on the recent searches (Kerr, 2015). Further discussion focuses on the fact
that certain exceptions would be applied based on the usage of the three lower court approaches.
3. Discussion of United States v Jarrett
The Fourth Amendment forwarded to the United States has been considered as a part of
the Bill of Rights. This further prohibits the unreasonable made seizures and searches. According
to the Fourth Amendment, which limits the authority provided to the government officials and
government agents, the certain aspect that would be considered as these agents were permitted
for conducting searches under certain preferable conditions. These conditions were considered
when the purpose was conducted as lawful and a certain warrant would have been obtained.
One certain exception was found against the Fourth Amendment in which it was formally
recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The lower
court had further put emphasis on the fact that an exception has been held to the warrant
supported by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment (Levinson-Waldman, 2016). The

4CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
requirement supported by the Fourth Amendment had existed when an activity of surveillance
would be conducted based on obtaining foreign intelligence based on the purposes of national
security. This would further be directed against the agents of foreign powers that would be
considered as reasonable when these would be conducted outside of the United States.
4. Discussion of United States v Adjani
In the case based on United States versus Adjani, it had been discussed that an execution
for a search warrant at the residence of defendant Christopher Adjani based on obtaining
evidence for the alleged extortion was conducted (Garrett & Stoughton, 2017). During this
extortion, the agents present within the Central Bureau of Investigation had seized the computer
that was used by Adjani along with the external storage devices that was later being searched by
the FBI Computer Laboratory department. Another computer that belonged to Jana Reinhold had
also been searched who had resided with Adjani.
The defendants in the case had brought several notions based on suppressing the emails
by arguing over the fact that the warrant had not been authorized for search and seizure along
with the contents. From the conclusion of the case, it was discussed that the case would be
resolved based on the discussion that computers would be considered as a means of data storage
and hence they would have a major need of being protected (Rich, 2016). The fact considering
with the rise of the technological world would be considered to strike a certain balance between
the rights to privacy and further ensuring that the government would be able to prosecute the
different suspected criminals in an effective manner.

5CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
5. Discussion of United States v Hunter
According to the discussion presented in the case of United States versus Hunter, it can
be discussed that various decisions were being presented in relation to “liberty”. The case was in
relation to the fact of conspiracy based on committing wire fraud and mail fraud that were in
connection to the extortion scheme involved within the call centers situated in Peru (Current and
Recent Cases, 2020). In relation to the event of crime, Hidalgo and Hermoza had primarily
admitted that consumers within the United States had falsely claimed to belong to the community
of attorneys and representatives of the government. The callers involved within the incident of
crime had told the victims that they had majorly failed towards paying for the delivery of
products. They had also claimed that the victims were facing court proceedings which had owed
to fine amounts ranging over thousands of dollars.

6CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
References
Current and Recent Cases. (2020). Retrieved 23 February 2020, from
https://www.justice.gov/civil/current-and-recent-cases
Erickson, W., & LaFave, W. (1980). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth
Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 78(3), 451. doi: 10.2307/1288364
Garrett, B., & Stoughton, S. (2017). A Tactical Fourth Amendment. Virginia Law Review, 211-
307.
Kerr, O. S. (2015). The Fourth Amendment and the Global Internet. Stan. L. Rev., 67, 285.
Levinson-Waldman, R. (2016). Hiding in Plain Sight: A Fourth Amendment Framework for
Analyzing Government Surveillance in Public. Emory LJ, 66, 527.
Newton, J. (2015). https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1079&context=ijts-transpersonalstudies. International Journal Of Transpersonal
Studies, 34(1-2), 172-186. doi: 10.24972/ijts.2015.34.1-2.172
Renan, D. (2016). The Fourth Amendment as Administrative Governance. Stan. L. Rev., 68,
1039.
Rich, M. L. (2016). Machine learning, automated suspicion algorithms, and the fourth
amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 871-929.