The brief definitions of the terms "search" and "seizure" was concisely summarized in United States v. Jacobsenwhich said that the Fourth Amendment: A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.
Taking the Fourth Amendment to Bits: As you are probably aware, on May 8, the Secret Service conducted a series of raids across Conduct search and seizure country.
Early news reports indicate these raids involved people and computers that could be connected with credit card and long distance toll fraud. Although no arrests or charges were made, Ripco BBS was confiscated on that morning.
It's [sic] involvement at this time is unknown. Since it is unlikely that the system will ever return, I'd just like to say goodbye, and thanks for your support for the last six and a half years. It's been Conduct search and seizure, to say the least.
Talk to ya later. He assumed he had been the victim of theft, until an agent of the U.
Secret Service appeared at his door minutes later. The agent informed Izenberg that his property had been seized as part of an ongoing investigation.
Izenberg was never charged with any crime, and his property was still in government possession as of January, The seizures were conducted pursuant to warrants issued on the basis of anonymous affidavits, which were subsequently sealed. Affidavits supporting the warrant allegedly conceded that officers from the Task Force had already obtained copies of all 45 files prior to execution of the warrant.
Society expects that law enforcement agencies, at both the state and federal levels, will seek out and prosecute individuals responsible for committing crimes; at the same time, each individual has an interest in assuring that his legitimately asserted privacy is respected.
The tensions implicit in these interests are the subject of the Fourth Amendment 5 and the body of case law that provision has spawned. It is not clear, however, that the law as it stands is well suited to the particular problems associated with the search and seizure of computers and computer data.
The immediate topic of this article will be the Federal Guidelines for Searching and Seizing Computers, 6 an attempt by a consortium of federal agencies to "offer some systematic guidance to all federal agents and attorneys as they wrestle with cases in this emerging area of the law.
Part II, "The Department of Justice Guidelines," presents an analysis of the DOJ Guidelines -- the historical background from which they developed, their significance, and what they contain.
This portion of the article also incorporates a brief discussion of the developing jurisprudence of the Fourth Amendment, with particular attention to those decisions in which courts have had to face questions raised by new technologies.
Two questions are raised within this context: What expectation of privacy in computer data is "reasonable"? And, are searches or seizures under the Guidelines "reasonable" as that word is defined by law, or as it is likely to be commonly understood?
The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age," argues for liberal Fourth Amendment protection of computer hardware, software, and data. Recognizing that technological methods such as public - key encryption exist whereby an individual computer user may take matters of privacy into her own hands, it is nevertheless argued that a statutory approach should be adopted.
Suggestions will be offered as to the form such a statutory approach might take. This is an article about cutting - edge technology, and about notions of privacy that were formulated centuries ago. This is also an article about government, operating within the limits of the Constitution and responding to legitimate threats, and about the security of the information stored on the PC on your desk.
This is an article about legal doctrines, developing without much visible self - consciousness, that will shape the relationship between the privacy of citizens and the police power of government in fundamental ways. The problems discussed below are not easy ones, and there are no easy solutions.
Meaningful comment requires that two equally terrifying scenarios be considered -- a future in which criminals roam cyberspace 8 with the impunity of medieval highwaymen, or a future in which no citizen may be assured that his most private information is beyond the reach of the government.
What follows is, as are the Guidelines themselves, a serious attempt to reconcile the conflicts between these extremes.
Computers and Crime In the cop world everything is good and bad, black and white. In the computer world everything is gray. Legal analyses of these theories will be addressed later in this article; for now, it is useful to consider how closely the three theories underlying a lawful search or seizure mirror the three ways one can look at a computer -- what it is, what it does, and what data it contains.
The DOJ Guidelines treat these three aspects of a computer as analytically distinct, and with good cause -- the theory underlying a search or seizure may affect the permissible scope of that search or seizure. This section will therefore concentrate on the nature of the computer, seen from three different perspectives.
First, the relatively simple problem of hardware -- the computer as the fruit of a crime -- will be mentioned. Second, attention will turn to how criminals may employ computers with the aid of software to commit crimes. Criminals may employ computers in the commission of "traditional" crimes for instance, a drug dealer could keep a database of customers, suppliers, and financial recordsor they may be involved in what has become known as a computer crime, 16 such as gaining unauthorized access to the use of time and information on someone else's computer.
The issues raised by treating a computer as the instrumentality of a crime are somewhat more complex than those raised when the computer is merely the fruit of a crime.The search-and-seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy.
To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.
SAMPLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE POLICY STATEMENT Part I. PURPOSE The policy requires the officer to document the reasons to search, conduct searches in a lawful and reasonable manner, and document the results of the searches.
The policy further outlines a . Search and Seizure Field Guide A synopsis of the Search and Seizure manual Introduction first whether police conduct constitutes a search before determining if it was reasonable.
It is critical to understand that according both to the US and Oregon.
Menu. RSS; Privacy & Security Policy; Glossary of Legal Terms; Operating Status; Download Plug-Ins; Email Updates; Contact Us; FAQs; This site is maintained by the. the seizure of power by the rebels property that is protected from seizure the seizure of evidence by the police Not all searches and seizures by the police require a warrant.
Consent Searches The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.
Law enforcement agencies must first obtain a search warrant, based on probable cause, before a search may be performed.