Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    1 at Trial How Could Speirs Be Found Liable For

    Uploaded by

    joanne bajeta
    This document discusses three cases related to invasion of privacy. In the first case, Speirs could be found liable for invasion of privacy if the bathroom camera was recording, even if not operating, as it violated an expectation of privacy. The second case supports this decision, finding employees' privacy was violated by a hidden camera in an office. In the third case, the pastor's motion to suppress evidence from a search of his private office and computer without a warrant was granted, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1 at Trial How Could Speirs Be Found Liable For

    Uploaded by

    joanne bajeta
    92 views1 page
    This document discusses three cases related to invasion of privacy. In the first case, Speirs could be found liable for invasion of privacy if the bathroom camera was recording, even if not operating, as it violated an expectation of privacy. The second case supports this decision, finding employees' privacy was violated by a hidden camera in an office. In the third case, the pastor's motion to suppress evidence from a search of his private office and computer without a warrant was granted, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

    Original Description:

    trial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses three cases related to invasion of privacy. In the first case, Speirs could be found liable for invasion of privacy if the bathroom camera was recording, even if not operating, as it violated an expectation of privacy. The second case supports this decision, finding employees' privacy was violated by a hidden camera in an office. In the third case, the pastor's motion to suppress evidence from a search of his private office and computer without a warrant was granted, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    92 views1 page

    1 at Trial How Could Speirs Be Found Liable For

    Uploaded by

    joanne bajeta
    This document discusses three cases related to invasion of privacy. In the first case, Speirs could be found liable for invasion of privacy if the bathroom camera was recording, even if not operating, as it violated an expectation of privacy. The second case supports this decision, finding employees' privacy was violated by a hidden camera in an office. In the third case, the pastor's motion to suppress evidence from a search of his private office and computer without a warrant was granted, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Solved: 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.

    ANSWER
    https://solvedquest.com/1-at-trial-how-could-speirs-be-found-liable-for/

    Reach out to [email protected] for enquiry.


    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

    You might also like