Introduction
Looking at the computer desk picture which forms part of the evidence for this case about piracy, there are two computer systems connected that are placed on the desk. Further, on top of the table are flash disks disk, microphones, and speakers. Additionally, one of the screens seems to display CD/DVD writer-up software, and the two computers are connected to the internet which indicates copyright infringement. Cracking the system to download the music without the consent of the owner using illegal music software could be going in this workstation (Hall, n.d.). This paper discusses potential evidence, artifacts, and privacy rights of the defendant concerning search warrants involving the Internet, and challenges law agents face while conducting investigations at private residences.
Potential Evidence and the Investigation
In this case, firstly, the offender is using software to share music without seeding it. Secondly, the evidence indicates downloading unauthorized versions of copyrighted music and the use of stream-ripping software. Copyright law protects creative work, making unauthorized copies means taking some financial gain from the rightful owner without their permission. Possible reasons for doing this could be to reproduce, distribute, and digitally transmit copyrighted songs. This constitutes an infringement on the right of the property owner and it is criminal in law (The Recording Industry Association of America, 2022). In addition, the analysis of the IP addresses showed several accesses to a website that the offender has no legal right to log into.
From the case and the image, it is evident that the offender violated the creator’s exclusive rights without their permission irrespective of whether there was a monetary gain or not. In particular, the access to be site and downloading occurred without express permission from the creator. The infringer did not follow the existing general licensing terms or contact the copyright owner before carrying out the activities on the site. Further, the offender did not seek a Creative Commons license from the owner to use the music under specific terms and conditions (Crail, 2022). In this case, the defendant’s actions exceeded the standards of fair use, and this shifts the burden of the proof to the proprietor of the workstation.
Privacy Rights and Search Warrant for Personal Space and Internet Activity
A search warrant could be issued to search a computer or any electronic media if there is a possible lead to believe that some crimes are committed using such systems. However, it must explain the place, the things, and how the search should be conducted (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2016). For, example, on suspicion that electronic devices have been used to perform illegality, the search, should always concentrate on the content of the files in them rather than the physical gadgets themselves. The law, particularly the Fourth Amendment of the United States requires that forensic analysis on confiscated devices be done within a reasonable time. Further, federal rules of criminal procedure require a search warrant to be completed within 10 days after its insurance. However, there could be delays including having to wait for a warrant to be granted or complications in the analysis.
To establish whether an individual has an expectation of privacy in information stored in electronic devices, then, the gadgets must be treated like closed containers such as a briefcase or file cabinet. In this kind of scenario, the Fourth Amendment prevents law enforcement agencies from accessing and viewing information kept on the devices (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). This, thus, forces the government agents to get a warrant from the courts, otherwise, it falls within an exception to the requirements.
However, the police and other law enforces could search a place or item with or without a warrant, or when there is no probable cause if the offender has given consent to the search. Consequently, for that to happen, the age, education, intelligence, and physical and mental condition of the person giving consent must be ascertained. Further, there must be a clear explanation of the extent to which the consent allows for the retrieval of the data stored in the computer or device (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Additionally, in some situations where consent is given to remove the electronics for off-site review, it could take longer than expected and this leads to revocation of the agreement. When there is a lawful arrest of the offender, a search could happen without a warrant.
The rules for carrying out warrantless searches and seizures in private-sector workplaces are normally similar to those for conducting warrantless searches in homes. Individuals always retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplaces (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Based on this, searches by police of a private workplace must be after getting a warrant unless the agents obtain the consent of the person. At workplaces, the employers and their supervisors usually have broader authority to consent to search, therefore, law agents could use this to overcome warrant requirements by obtaining permission from the heads of the institution.
Challenges Associated with Investigation at a Private Residence
People are entitled to freedom from government agencies’ intrusion, but there are limits to it. For example, the Fourth Amendment of the United States of America protects the personal privacy of all its citizens while in their homes, businesses, or properties (Findlaw, 2019). It has equally impacted the requirement and procedure for any legal arrest, and police stop on the street. For any search to occur under this amendment, there is a search and seizure rule that determines whether the evidence is admissible at trial or not. Further, the amendment prevents police searches on individuals when they have a legitimate expectation of privacy on their person, clothes, purse, luggage, vehicles, houses, and businesses. In addition, it safeguards and blocks unlawfully seized items to be used as evidence in criminal cases.
The Exclusionary Rule
This rule provides that the evidence derived through an unreasonable search or seizure cannot be introduced against a defendant at a criminal trial. The offender or their attorney normally brings a motion to suppress this evidence (Justia, 2022). In several instances where the prosecution depends heavily on the evidence from the search to prove their case, a successful claim by the defendant could lead to the defeat of the case.
Conclusion
From the case and the image, it is evident that the offender violated the creator’s exclusive rights without their permission irrespective of whether there was a monetary gain or not. In particular, the access to be site and downloading occurred without express permission from the creator. This could lead to a search warrant being issued to search a computer or any electronic media because there is evidence of a crime committed. However, the offender is still entitled to freedom from government agencies’ intrusion on his personal privacy, their homes, properties, and businesses.
References
Crail, C. (2022). What is copyright infringement? everything you need to know. Forbes. Web.
FindLaw Team. (2019). Police search and seizure limitations. Web.
Justia. (2022). Limits on searches and seizures in criminal investigations. Web.
Hall, A. (n.d.). Copyright infringement tips for illegal movie &music Download Cases. Web.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2016). Law Enforcement Cyber Center. Web.
The Recording Industry Association of America. (2022). Resources and learning. RIAA. Web.
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Searching & seizing computers and obtaining electronic evidence in criminal investigation manual. Web.