Purchase Solved Liberty University CJUS 540 Test 1

Purchase Solved Liberty University CJUS 540 Test 1

Set 1

1. Ownership is not dispositive — a person can have an expectation of privacy in a work computer, even from a government employer. Leventhal v. Knapek (266 F. 3d 64, 73 (2nd Cor. 2001) authored by Justice Sotomayor when on the 2nd circuit) demonstrates that point and lists a variety of factors that influence the analysis. The Supreme Court in Quon (City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), however, offered some additional possible factors (in dicta) on the subject. How is Quon arguably distinguishable from other situations related to data on work computers?
2. Why is there no standard definition of “cybercrime?”
3. Does a warrant seeking digital evidence have to specify how the authorities will conduct the search or merely what the government is seeking?
4. List and briefly explain the three federal statutes that provide a partial framework to regulate government interception of Internet communication.

Set 2

1. Briefly define and explain Applicability and Satisfaction as they apply to the legal framework of the Fourth Amendment.
2. Explain the basic elements of the Plan View Doctrine.
3. Does a warrant seeking digital evidence have to specify how the authorities will conduct the search or merely what the government is seeking?
4. Why is there no standard definition of “cybercrime?”

Set 3

1. Regarding the Private Search Doctrine, how could a person lose the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy? Provide an example, if necessary.
2. List and briefly explain the three federal statutes that provide a partial framework to regulate government interception of Internet communication.
3. List the three ways a computer or mobile device can be involved in a crime along with a brief example of each one.
4. Why is there no standard definition of “cybercrime?”