Db 1 responses

.docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

540

Subject

Electrical Engineering

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by steezlebot on coursehero.com

Each reply must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks, the Bible, etc 250 words Hello Danielle, Thank you for your contribution to this discussion board post. It was a pleasure to read. Obtaining evidence in a legal manner while following the appropriate channels and framework of the Fourth Amendment is one of the most challenging aspects of any case. It is especially difficult in a case involving the web. “ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” ( English Standard Version, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2001/2023). You stated it best in your second to last sentence that every step is crucial to guarantee “that the investigation is conducted ethically, legally, and within respect for the individuals’ rights." Skipping steps can easily have a case or even evidence thrown out. Perrine was caught distributing and viewing child pornography, but questioned the case on multiple counts, citing violations of his charges. In order to secure a conviction, investigators need to defend the legality of their actions as well as the ease with which Perrine can be incriminated. The officers have saved chats from Vanlandingham, obtained a warrant from Yahoo to view the information Perrine voluntarily shared, and linked him to an IP address from Cox Communications. If used appropriately and with reasonable grounds, the Stored Communications Act of 1986 allows prosecutors to use the data for evidence (Travieso, 2019). However, Perrine admitted to using Stevendragonslayer as his username. Since police could have easily linked his IP address through other searches and non-regulated cyberspace. Prosecutors can reject evidence that does not have a legal foundation if investigators do not clearly explain how they received the information. The court concluded that information provided to an internet service provider is not protected by the Fourth Amendment and cited several former cases to support this, including Hambrick, Guest, and Lifshitz, as well as other lower court judgments (Cantón, 2011). Perrine installed peer-to-peer software on his computer, allowing others to access certain folders. The courts determined that this action breached any expectation of privacy concerning his computer and the contents that he might have had. Perrine's criminal history of past cases involving illicit material also helps to link him to the current accusations. Thank you again for providing your thoughts and insight to this forum. I look forward to reading your views on future discussions. God Bless, Heaven References Cantón, F. (2011). The Fourth Amendment and cyberspace: conflict or cohesion? [Dissertation and Thesis]. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.336 English Standard Version. (2023). Open Bible. https://www.openbible.info/topics/ethics (Original work published 2001)

Travieso, Florencio. (2019). The Legal Implications of Digital Privacy. Government Technology. https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/The-Legal-Implications-of-Digital- Privacy.html Danielle Hill What evidence of crime is there? (recount the facts of the case). In the case of United States v. Steven C. Perrine, the evidence of the crime involved tracing the source of criminal activity on a digital device ( 10th Cir. 2008) . Law enforcement had to navigate through different legal frameworks, including statutes, the Fourth Amendment, and non-regulated cyberspace, to gather evidence. It is a complex investigation that highlights the challenges investigators face in this digital age. So, in short, the evidence revolved around the digital activities and the devices involved (10th Cir. 2008) . Who is the criminal; how do the police find him? In the case of United States v. Steven C. Perrine, Steven C. Perrine himself was the individual identified as the criminal. Now, let me walk you through how the police managed to find him. The investigation began with law enforcement utilizing the statutory framework to trace the source of criminal activity. They likely received information or identified suspicious digital activity that led them to focus on Steven C. Perrine as a potential suspect. It's important to note that investigators can use various tools and techniques available on the internet to gather information and facilitate their investigation. Once Perrine was identified as a person of interest, law enforcement had to operate within the Fourth Amendment framework to gather evidence. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, it means that the police had to follow proper legal procedures to obtain evidence from Perrine's digital device. To gather evidence, investigators may have obtained a warrant or other legal authorization to search Perrine's digital device. They could have used specialized forensic techniques to extract relevant data and information from the device. This process involves carefully examining the device's contents, such as emails, messages, browsing history, or any other digital evidence that could link Perrine to the criminal activity.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version