Preview

Learning Team IRAC Brief week 3

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1656 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Learning Team IRAC Brief week 3
Learning Team IRAC Brief

LAW/531

Learning Team B was tasked to study the IRAC method of case study analysis, and select one legal case from a current event that has taken place within the past two years relevant to this week’s objectives. After selecting a current case, Learning Team B prepared a case brief using the IRAC method. Learning Team B selected the United States v. Jones case, which was decided January 23, 2012. Learning Team B was also tasked to provide an explanation of how the legal concepts in the United States v. Jones case could be applied within a business managerial setting.
The government issued a warrant to place a Global Positioning System on the personal vehicle of Jones to track any unlawful behavior. For 28 days, the government monitored the vehicle and “it subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges” ("United states v.," 2012). The issue is that a violation of the Fourth Amendment may be in question. The question in this case is whether or not the vehicle that was fitted with the GPS is considered real or personal property. Also how is the vehicle subject to government surveillance only on public property? Could the vehicle be subject to the real or personal property laws protected under the Fourth Amendment? The question remains if the vehicle can be searched using the GPS only part of the time. The court’s ruling still does not clearly define what the fourth amendment covers as real or personal property. The definition of the Fourth Amendment is not completely clear on exactly what the real or personal property is defined as or if it is reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by society or a court of law. The law “protects reasonable expectations of privacy, but the Supreme Court has refused to provide a consistent explanation for what makes an expectation of privacy ‘reasonable’” (Kerr, 2007, p. 503).
The Fourth Amendment can be applied to a business managerial

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The statement, “The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” is one of the most controversial statements in Criminal Procedure. The amendment’s purpose is to secure individuals’ rights to privacy within their houses, papers, and defends them against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, to what extent does the law preserve a person’s privacy? The Law of Search and Seizure and the Search Warrant, give the government strict to stipulations as to how they are able to rightfully obtain information that is presumed to be private. Although Searches, Seizures and Warrants seem to have simple guidelines, they are each intricate categories.…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    “The Fourth Amendment provides the people of the United States, the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Against unreasonable searches, and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized” (U.S Constitutional Amendments, 1972). The design of this Amendment is to create a type of barrier in order to protect individual rights to privacy, also preventing illegal search, and seizure of personal property. These search warrants are in…

    • 1424 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Federal Jurisdiction

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Morgan, J.F., Shedd, P.J., & CorleY, R.N. (2010). Business Law (3rd ed.). BVT Publishing, LLC…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    References: Duhigg, C., & Barboza, D. (2012, January 25). In, China, Human Cost Are Built Into an IPad, p. The iEconomy.…

    • 1666 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    WEEK THREE LEARNING TEAM B ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM 1-30A OSHEA ENTERPRISES INCOME STATEMENT AT DECEMBER 31, 2002 REVENUE $48,000.00 OPERATING EXPENSES 32,000.00 NET INCOME (change in Net Assets) $16,000.00 OSHEA ENTERPRISES STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY AT DECEMBER 31, 2002 BEGINNING COMMON STOCK 4,000.00 PLUS: COMMON STOCK ISSUED 10,000.00 ENDING COMMON STOCK $14,000.00 BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS 8,000.00 PLUS: NET INCOME 16,000.00 LESS: DIVIDENDS (2,000.00) ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS 22,000.00 TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY $36,000.00 OSHEA ENTERPRISES BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 2002 ASSETS CASH $48,000.00 LAND TOTAL ASSETS $48,000.00 LIABILITIES NOTES PAYABLE $12,000.00 STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY COMMON STOCK $14,000.00 RETAINED EARNINGS 22,000.00 TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY 36,000.00 TOTAL LIABILITY AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY $48,000.00 OSHEA ENTERPRISES STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AT DECEMBER 31, 2002 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: CASH RECEIPTS FROM REVENUE $48,000.00 CASH PAYMENTS FOR EXPENSES (32,000.00) NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING EXPENSES $16,000.00 CASH FLOWS FOR INVESTING ACTIVITIES: CASH PAYMENTS TO PURCHASE LAND CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: CASH RECEIPTS FROM ISSUING COMMON STOCK 10,000.00 CASH PAYMENTS FOR DIVIDENDS (2,000.00) CASH PAYMENTS TO REDUCE LIABILITY (6,000.00) NET CASH…

    • 267 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Josey, S. A. (2011). Along for the Ride: GPS and the Fourth Amendment. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 14(1), 161-186.…

    • 15385 Words
    • 62 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Small Business

    • 1230 Words
    • 5 Pages

    References: Anderson, R.A., Fox, 1., Twomey, D.P., and Jennings, M.M., (1999). Business Law & The Legal…

    • 1230 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The government official does not have the right to go on the man’s property without a warrant. In 4th Amendment, it specifically says “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue” it means that a government official can not go on your property, car or phone without probable cause.…

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Case Study

    • 987 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In this case study the situation is Ruth Cummings was put in charge of a store by her boss Ken Hoffman. “Ruth, I’m putting you in charge of this store. Your job will be to run it so that it becomes one of the best stores in the system. I have a lot of confidence in you, so don’t let me down.” That was what was told to Ruth by Ken on her first day. After a couple of calls from her boss Mr. Hoffman, Ruth decides to make an appointment with him. Resolving and defining the issues of this case will assist in developing a preferred alternative and implementation plan for resolution to the case. (Leffler, 1999)…

    • 987 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    A critical point to be noted is that the Fourth Amendment only applies to government action, which includes deputized individuals or those acting at the direction/behest of law enforcement. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment requires not only an actual expectation of privacy, but also, a societally recognized, reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or area searched.…

    • 309 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Fourth Amendment protects us citizens from the searching of our homes and private property without properly executed search warrants. If law enforcement wants to collect these records such as GPS tracking or cell phone tracking, they will need a search warrant based on probable cause. This constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment because it violates the individuals reasonable expectation of privacy. You would think that your location would be private and expect it to remain private, but that is not the case. When law enforcement seeks the cell phone location and this individual is inside his or her house, they cross the line by learning facts about the interior of the home, which is clearly illegal without a warrant. Let's say the…

    • 210 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    · The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens’ “houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This means that if a government official or police officer wants to search your person or your property, he/she cannot do so without a judicial warrant and/or probable cause.…

    • 305 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that every person has the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure.”(Brooks). However, this right was not always protected in court, criminal defendants would have to sit and watch as evidence was still admissible even if it had been seized with no warrant. Our right to privacy is granted by the fourth amendment, and its garauntee’s are still fuzzy to this day, as the evolution of the fourth amendment is not yet over.…

    • 357 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Knott Case Summary

    • 2159 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Knotts (1983) provides an apt framework to evaluate this question. In Knotts, a beeper device “had been placed in a container of chloroform” (Jones Slip. 8) much in the same manner as here—asking the distributor to install the device in the container. The device “allow[ed] law enforcement to monitor the location of the container” (Id). Also like Knotts, police here used the installed device to track their target’s movements on public thoroughfares. The Court held in Knotts that “there had been no infringement of Knotts’ reasonable expectation of privacy since the information obtained—the location of the automobile carrying the container on public roads…—had been voluntarily conveyed to the public” (8). So too here; the device only gave police information that Kilgrave knowingly extended to the public. Likewise, Kilgrave would not be able to invoke the Fourth Amendment’s heightened protection of personal effects here, for the police installed the tracking device in the headlight before it was his property. Indeed, “[the Court] specifically declined to consider” the effect of the distributor’s consent “on [Knotts’s] Fourth Amendment analysis” (Jones 8). Hence, under existing law, no trouble arises from tainting an effect before it becomes the target’s property. Consequently, the police’s surreptitious bicycle tracking does not qualify as an unreasonable search under the Fourth…

    • 2159 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Investement

    • 9031 Words
    • 37 Pages

    This case was prepared by Boris Morozov and Rebecca J. Morris both from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The views presented here are those ofthe case authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Society for Case Research. The authors' views are based on their own professional judgments. Copyright © 2009 by the Society for Case Research and the authors. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without the written permission ofthe Society for Case Research…

    • 9031 Words
    • 37 Pages
    Powerful Essays