As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyberlaw cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence of officer inadvertence, despite its lack of necessity, are properly doing so as a means of analysis for cyber cases to more suitably adjust to the searches of computers and related technology. The Tenth Circuit has knowingly disregarded Supreme Court precedent, and this continues its disagreement with the Fourth Circuit and perpetuates a circuit split that should be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.
Our guest this episode is Professor Michelle Zakarin.
I have been teaching Legal Process, the first-year legal research and writing course, since 2003 and, in 2010, I proposed and developed the course Cybercrime which I have been teaching since its adoption. With an undergraduate degree in Computer Science, I have combined my interest in technology with my interest in the law by creating this popular elective course. In Cybercrime, law students study issues involving technology and the applicability of the Fourth Amendment, statutory regulations in obtaining stored data, cyberbullying, stalking, harassment, and more. I recently authored a book chapter in Millennial Leadership in Law Schools, to be published by Hein in 2020. My chapter is titled, The Importance of Feedback, and it discusses, among other things, the use of technology to provide feedback.
You must be logged in to post a comment.