Hypothetical Fact patterns
Rahman Syed
11/6/14
Criminal Procedure, Section 2283; Professor Passante
4th Amendment Paper
Hypothetical Fact Pattern #1: In this scenario, we see that Rosa, who works at a private information technology company called Acme Systems, is fired from her job. Her termination was due to the marijuana found in her purse by Bob, an Acme security guard who wanted to detect and prevent drug use in the workplace. The issue in question is that if Rosa’s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. The 4th Amendment applies only to governmental agents and not to public or private companies. The search of Rosa’s purse was not performed by a governmental agent; rather, it was performed by a private security guard, working for her employer, Acme Systems. As a result, Bob, the employed Acme security guard at the time of the incident, has the ability to search Rosa’s purse without violating her 4th Amendment rights.
Hypothetical Fact Pattern #2:
In this hypothetical fact pattern, Officer Turek is investigating assertions that Tiny recently robbed a bank and is now planning a museum heist. Officer Turek must establish probable cause before applying for a search warrant to search Tiny’s apartment for evidence. The probable cause that Officer Turek has in this hypothetical fact pattern is his “unusual theories about suspects”, which does not constitute probable cause to search.
Officer Turek followed Tiny into an Internet Café. An Internet Café is a public place for 4th Amendment purposes, for which any individual may enter and use the services provided. Governmental agents do not violate the 4th Amendment by carrying out surveillance as long as what they see and what they hear is available to the general public. Therefore, Officer Turek did not violate the 4th Amendment by conducting his observations on Tiny’s actions from afar.
In this case, Officer Turek and Tiny were both considered customers of the Internet Café. After Tiny used one of the seven computers available, he left the
11/6/14
Criminal Procedure, Section 2283; Professor Passante
4th Amendment Paper
Hypothetical Fact Pattern #1: In this scenario, we see that Rosa, who works at a private information technology company called Acme Systems, is fired from her job. Her termination was due to the marijuana found in her purse by Bob, an Acme security guard who wanted to detect and prevent drug use in the workplace. The issue in question is that if Rosa’s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. The 4th Amendment applies only to governmental agents and not to public or private companies. The search of Rosa’s purse was not performed by a governmental agent; rather, it was performed by a private security guard, working for her employer, Acme Systems. As a result, Bob, the employed Acme security guard at the time of the incident, has the ability to search Rosa’s purse without violating her 4th Amendment rights.
Hypothetical Fact Pattern #2:
In this hypothetical fact pattern, Officer Turek is investigating assertions that Tiny recently robbed a bank and is now planning a museum heist. Officer Turek must establish probable cause before applying for a search warrant to search Tiny’s apartment for evidence. The probable cause that Officer Turek has in this hypothetical fact pattern is his “unusual theories about suspects”, which does not constitute probable cause to search.
Officer Turek followed Tiny into an Internet Café. An Internet Café is a public place for 4th Amendment purposes, for which any individual may enter and use the services provided. Governmental agents do not violate the 4th Amendment by carrying out surveillance as long as what they see and what they hear is available to the general public. Therefore, Officer Turek did not violate the 4th Amendment by conducting his observations on Tiny’s actions from afar.
In this case, Officer Turek and Tiny were both considered customers of the Internet Café. After Tiny used one of the seven computers available, he left the