Running head: COMPUTER CRIME 1

Computer Crime and the 4th Amendment
ITT Technical Institute

COMPUTER CRIME 2

The case law that would allow me to search the office computer of Jacob Myers would be the 4th Amendment law and also The Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications Act. Under the 4th Amendment to do a search and seizure you need to have probable cause. Under The Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications Act it typically requires a court order issued by a judge who must decide that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed.
In this case we do have probable cause because the victim, Cynthia Simmons had to countless number of times change her email, IM, and internet provider; during a preliminary investigation we scanned the victims computer and found a key logging program was being used to collect the victims information and stalk the victim. And upon our investigation, posing as the victim the offender once again sent the victim a message via IM. That conversation allowed the officers to trace the computer to the offender’s job at the probation department. So because the suspect Jacob Myers works at the probation department and he has been the one previously stalking the victim there is enough probable cause to search his work computer and put surveillance because now he is using it outside of doing work.
In this case the suspect’s supervisor Michael Henderson has consented to employing only surveillance on the internet usage of the suspect and the law that supports that is the third party consent. In a third party consent an officer can search a suspect’s information, computer, etc if the third party has sufficient legal authority over the place or thing they want to search.
COMPUTER CRIME 3 The research that supports the investigation technique used to trace the instant message communication comes from Jessica Reust (2006), a Digital Forensic Examiner and Investigator. In her case the suspect was accused of raping the defendant, but the suspect claimed that he consenting sex with defendant because they spoke earlier on IM and the victim invited him over. But the victim’s boyfriend claims he was having an IM conversation with the victim shortly before she was raped. The victim did claim knowledge of having the suspects IM name in her Buddy List.
The forensic examiner presented evidence relating to the use of AIM, including the presence of the defendant’s AIM profile and personalized away messages on the complainant’s computer, and the presence of each party’s AIM screen names in close proximity with the phrase ‘‘recent IM Screen Names’’ on the defendant’s computer, which is indicative of an AIM conversation having occurred. The forensic examiner concluded that there was evidence of AIM communications between the AIM screen name used by the defendant and the AIM screen name used by the complainant. In the end the suspect was acquitted of the rape charges. (Reust, 2006)

COMPUTER CRIME 4
References
http://www.strozfriedberg.com/files/Publication/87a719ee-2cfd-47ee-b91a-454146ccd4ca/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f9e76600-1f02-4b87-b5d4-2646988cad97/ReustAolArticle.pdf http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13492 http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm