Fourth Amendment and Privacy in Computer Law, Crime, and Investigation

This essay delves into the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, emphasizing its role in protecting individual rights to security and privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures. It examines the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy, illustrating its application through the case of United States v. Jones, which involved warrantless GPS tracking. The paper discusses the implications of such actions, arguing that any search or seizure conducted without a warrant, especially involving digital devices, violates an individual's privacy rights. The essay underscores the importance of court orders and warrants in investigations, as per the Fourth Amendment, and concludes by summarizing the key points regarding the protection of privacy and security rights in the context of computer law and investigation.

Running head: COMPUTER LAW, CRIME AND INVESTIGATION
COMPUTER LAW, CRIME AND INVESTIGATION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMPUTER LAW, CRIME AND INVESTIGATION
Introduction
The Fourth Amendment, which is a part of the U.S. Constitution, is considered to provide
right to security to the individuals. It also provides them security of their papers, houses from any
kind of unreasonable searches and seizures until a probable cause has been established or any
warrant for such has been issued and supported by oath or any affirmation that supports such
seizures or searches (Tokson, 2016).
This paper discusses the fourth amendment and the privacy rights of the individuals with
relation to the reasonable expectation of privacy. To understand the reasonable expectation of
privacy it would briefly elaborate with the help of case law United States v. Jones. In conclusion,
it summarizes the points that have been discussed in the paper.
Discussion
The Fourth Amendment provides the law to not violate rights to privacy of the
individuals during any searches and seizures. As it has been discussed in the case of United
States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) the police had conducted a warrantless search where a GPS
tracker had been installed on Jones’s car in order to investigate the movements. It was in order to
investigate narcotics violations. In the appeal, it was argued by Jones that such an act was
considered to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment which gave protection to the individuals
against search and seizure which was unreasonable. It was later overturned stating that such an
act conducted a search and it was a violation to the reasonable expectation of privacy of Jones.
The decision of the court was subjected to a legal debate, which was considered to be significant.
It was opined by several judges that the act of monitoring the activities of a person’s movements
without any warrant constitutes as a search and therefore, such was considered to violate the

2COMPUTER LAW, CRIME AND INVESTIGATION
rights of privacy of the individual. From the above case, it can be understood that if a search is
conducted or if a detainment of an individual occurs regarding the property or belongings or any
information of that person without a warrant such would invade the rights of privacy of the
individual. As per the U.S. legal system, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The law
needs to provide with a court order before investigating an individual’s devices. As the Fourth
Amendment states that, the law cannot violate an individual’s personal rights without any
warrant. Therefore, in the scenario where the police authorities started exploring the devices and
searching on the basis of suspension without a warrant such constituted as a violation to privacy
and therefore, the individual in this scenario was being violated of his rights to privacy and
security on the basis of the Fourth Amendment.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be understood that the rights to privacy and security laws of an
individual cannot be violated. A search or any seizure can only be constituted and conducted if
there has been a court order issued for such or a warrant generated against that individual.

3COMPUTER LAW, CRIME AND INVESTIGATION
References
Tokson, M. (2016). Knowledge and Fourth Amendment Privacy. Nw. UL Rev., 111, 139.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).