Search and Seizure

Although the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, this law is framed around the context of law enforcement roles. In this case, the Digital Forensics Examiner or the supervisor is not acting on behalf of a court or in any other law enforcement role. Therefore, the Digital Forensics Examiner or the supervisor will “not [be] subject[ed] to the Fourth Amendment” (Lonardo, White, Martland & Rea, 2011) and can perform the search of the vehicle. In this case, the organization needs to protect its interest in order to continue to operate in an efficient manner. Although there is an expectation of privacy from the employee, searching the vehicle may not be considered unreasonable (Johnson & Waltemath, 2003).

-------------------------------------------------

A factor to consider on this case is consent to search. Mr. Yourprop can directly consent to the search of the vehicle. Alternatively, the Mr. Yourprop may have provided his implied consent to search the vehicle once he accepted the terms of the organization to access the company’s parking lot.

The organization can direct local police to search the vehicle as the vehicle is parked in company property. For law enforcement personnel to conduct a search of the vehicle, probable cause must be established (Regini, 1999). In this case, the organization can make a case that they believe Mr. Yourprop has engaged in a criminal activity and if they can provide enough evidence to substantiate probable cause, law enforcement can perform the search.

-------------------------------------------------

However, based solely on the comments made by Mr. Yourprop during his exit interview, enough evidence to substantiate probable cause does not exists, in my personal opinion, and it is unlikely that local law enforcement will perform the search of the vehicle. Unlike a Digital Forensics Examiner, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution binds law...