I believe the two technological devices chosen were good examples of items that would typically be of interest in any search and seizure procedure where crime could have been committed using electronic devices. Internal hard drives and USB drives are the primary memory banks for saved items on a computer, thus becoming very important if police or work administrators believe wrongdoing was committed using a computer.
I agree with the reply stating that a crime scene or area surrounding the electronic equipment in question should be contained to prevent any tampering of evidence. The writer should have mentioned much sooner the importance of obtaining a search warrant. “The U.S. Supreme Court recently observed that digital devices ‘have become important tools [for] criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals’” (Welty, 2014). A warrant is not necessary in the beginning of an investigation but the moment consent is not given to search any area, whether in a desk or on a computer, a warrant should become an immediate priority.
I believe a more practical device that is becoming increasingly more scrutinized for being admissible into evidence is a cellular phone. Many people believe that phone companies are not allowed to give private customer information to anyone without prior authorization. This is not the case, however. “To ensure that first responders and investigators make the proper judgment calls when seizing a subject’s mobile device, a mix of training, policy, and equipment is needed” (Miller, 2014). Even without a search warrant, law enforcement can track last known locations of where cellular calls are made. In more extreme cases, officers can seize a phone and use any information contained within the device against the individual. This seems like a violation of constitutional rights but the fifth amendment does not apply to information saved or transmitted on personal electronic devices.
Any claim to privacy an individual has about a private employer searching anything owned or paid for by the company is facing a very steep uphill battle. There are a number of stipulations in employment contracts that state that any information shared or saved on their equipment is the property of said company and sharing of such is up to the discretion of the company executives. In this case, a warrant is not necessary because the individual claiming privacy issues actually has no valid claim to a privacy violation.
References
Welty, Jeff (October 2014). Search Warrants for Digital Devices. In The Police Chief (81, 98-100). Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=3527&issue_id=102014
Miller, Christa (18 March 2015). Mobile Device Search and Seizure in a Post-Riley World. In Forensic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forensicmag.com/article/2015/03/mobile-device-search-and-seizure-post-riley-world
