Question: 1 At trial how could Speirs be found liable for

1. At trial, how could Speirs be found liable for invasion of privacy if the bathroom camera was not operating? Explain.
2. The court in Koeppel cited an additional case involving the following facts: The director of a nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children learned that some-one was accessing pornographic websites late at night from a facility office computer located in an enclosed office. The two employees stationed in that office performed clerical work during normal business hours and were not suspected. Without telling them, the director installed a hidden camera in the office, trained on the computer in question. The camera did not operate during the day. After discovering the camera, the employees sued for invasion of privacy.
a. How might this case support the court’s decision in Koeppel?
b. Decide. Explain.
3. Young was the pastor of Ft. Caroline United Methodist Church in Florida. Young was provided with a private office and a computer in that office. The computer was not net-worked to any other computers. Young and the church administrator had keys to the office. No one was permitted in the office without Young’s permission, and the church administrator was not permitted to log on to the computer unless Young was present.
The church administrator received notice from the church’s Internet service provider that spam was linked to the church’s Internet address. The administrator ran a “spybot” program on the church computers and found questionable Web addresses. The church’s district supervisor and bishop were contacted and permission was given to involve police officials. Officers came to the church, the administrator un-locked Young’s office and signed “consent to search” forms for the office and the computer. Officers searched the office and computer and found proscribed images and websites.
Young subsequently filed a trial court motion to suppress the evidence gained from the office and computer search. The trial judge granted that motion ruling that the search violated Young’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The state appealed. Rule on that appeal.

View Solution:

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question