\n
In Kyllo v. United States<\/em>, the Court held that the warrantless use of a thermal detector to determine whether the amount of heat emanating from the suspect\u2019s home was consistent with presence of high-intensity lamps used to grow marijuana violated the Fourth Amendment because the device yielded information about activities inside a home that police could not otherwise have obtained without entering. The Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies when police use high-tech surveillance equipment to gather information about activities inside a home.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n3. Joe Staples\u2019s lawyer demands that all charges against his client be dropped. What is the result, and why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
Because police violated Joe Staples\u2019 Fourth Amendment rights in conducting an illegal search, all of the evidence gathered on the marijuana-growing operation is inadmissible. Joe Staples goes free.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Case Study 3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Jeffrey Winkle conducted his business over the Internet\u2014including his criminal business. Winkle had made a small fortune as an online entrepreneur and, as a hobby, he fancied himself a collector of rare antiquities. He had an impressive collection in his home, where he threw lavish parties for important friends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To finance this hobby, Winkle traded in black-market antiquities. His friends soon had fine collections of their own, though most of them could not display them as proudly as he did. Winkle took orders from his contacts via e-mail and then sent messages in return when he obtained certain items to see if they might be interested. He used coded language, of course, but the overall gist of his communications was clear. Once an agreement was reached on price, payment and shipping details were arranged. Winkle avoided the telephone, and there was no paper trail linking him to his deals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The authorities had suspected him for a couple of years of dealing in rare artifacts illegally, but they were unable to trace anything directly back to him. He was careful with shipping methods and worked with a network of couriers to make sure that his name was in no way connected with the shipments. However, after arresting one of his important friends on a cocaine charge, an officer found a printout of an e-mail from Winkle that appeared to be a description of a rare artifact and a price in his wallet. When questioned about the paper, the important friend gave some incriminating testimony about Winkle\u2019s online operation. The important friend did not know if Winkle came about these objects legally or not, but he did know that Winkle wanted everything kept quiet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This gave the authorities an idea. They would search Winkle\u2019s e-mail records to see if they could get enough evidence to prosecute him. His love of collecting, they surmised, might have made him an e-mail saver.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n 1. What law governs e-mail after it arrives at its destination? How does this law compare with other laws concerning communications?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
Once e-mail messages arrive at their destination, they are governed by the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Act (Stored Communications Act). In the very brief period after the sender hits \u201csend\u201d and the message arrives at its destination, messages are governed by the Wiretap Act, but for all intents and purposes, that protection is nonexistent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
2. How does this law compare with other laws concerning communications?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
Protection under the Stored Communications Act is considerably less than that afforded by the Wiretap Act. During the first 180 days of storage, access can be obtained only through a conventional search warrant, which means that the government must have probable cause. However, protection dwindles with the passage of the time. After 180 days, if notice is given to the subscriber, disclosure can be compelled through an administrative subpoena, grand jury subpoena, or court order, based on a showing that the contents are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The notice can be delayed by up to 90 days, if giving notice presents a risk to the investigation. E-mail that has been in storage for 180 days may, in many cases, be obtained without notice to the subscriber.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
3. The authorities realize that they do not have much to go on for their investigation of Winkle, so they seek out e-mails older than 180 days. Would they be able to obtain those e-mails?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Answer<\/span>+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
Based on the testimony from the \u201cimportant friend\u2019 and the e-mail printout, the authorities could get a subpoena from a judge to gain access to Winkle\u2019s e-mail messages that are older than 180 days. By looking at older messages first, the authorities delay notifying Winkle of their investigation, allowing them more time to gather evidence<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Case Study 1 Janie Smith headed up a criminal ring in Sometown. This ring had been responsible for the rise in drug-related activity and prostitution in the town, and yet because Smith ran a tight and efficient operation, police have no evidence tying her directly to any crimes. Every time the police thought they had…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"parent":338,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-368","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=368"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":387,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/368\/revisions\/387"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}