Cybercrime Law and Investigations Solutions

Running head: QUESTIONS 0
CYBERCRIME LAW AND INVESTIGATIONS
MARCH 7, 2020
STUDENT DETAILS:

QUESTIONS 1
1. The pen register is considered as surveillance device that track phone number dialled
on outgoing phone call. In addition, the trap as well as trace tools track number
recognising incoming call. They are not required to disclose contents
of communication. Accordingly, the trap and trace devices as well as pen register are
very helpful in enforcing law and posing important issues related to privacy. There
are 3 main laws setting privacy standards for government interference of
communication and access to data of subscribers. These involve Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986, federal wiretap statute as well as the pen
register and trap and trace statute that passed as part of ECPA. Pen register along with
trap and trace statute, passed as part of Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
USC 3121 et seq., regulating real-time interruption of "number dialled or otherwise
transmitted on phone lines to which device is connected." The standard is that of
rubber stamp. Additionally, if provisions of trap and trace as well as pen register are
rendered countrywide result, then it is not required to be applied on each order. There
should certain requirements that the claimant clarify to the satisfaction of judge why
consultant is required to do investigation across jurisdictional line (Goldfoot, 2018).
2. In the case of Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the female was deprived. The
robbery got frightening calls from thief. To learn the recognition, the telephone
company connected pen register at the office for recording numbers dialled from the
home of robber, at demand of forces. The police force did not get warrant. The
problem is that whether connection along with utilisation of the pen register

QUESTIONS 2
establishes “search” in implication of fourth amendment? In this case, it was held by
Supreme Court that utilisation of pen register without the warrant does not breach
fourth amendment. The pen registers are considered as devices that are installed at
telephone organisation and that automatically record the dialled numbers from related
line. This device is not like wiretap. The pen registers are not required to monitor
constantly. In this way, the pen register is smart surveillance method. Law
enforcement officers need not secure a warrant before installing a pen register. The
reason is that utilisation of the devices was found not to be "search" as per the fourth
amendment. The warrant is not required for this. However, the pen register can
disclose much in related to personal life of individual. In this way, this decision left
pen register entirely outside constitutional defence. If there were to be permissible
basis for privacy protection of data covered in pen register, this will be required by
Congress to enact this as statutory privacy law.
3. A case of Knotts v United States 460 U.S. 276 (1983) was related to utilisation of the
electronic surveillance device. It was argued by offenders that utilisation of device
was violation of 4th Amendment. A questioned device was defined as the beeper that
may only be traced from shorter distance. During a single trip, the officer followed
car comprising the beeper, depending on beeper signal to decide ultimate destination
of car. In this case, it was held by the court that since the utilisation of this device did
not breach the legal expectation of privacy, there was no seizure as well as search. In
this way, the utilisation was permitted without any warrant. It articulated that the
individual roaming in public has no anticipation of privacy in the movement. It can