Cybercrime Law and Investigations

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

CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS1
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

CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS2
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