Case Study Of A Homeland Security Task Force

explanatory Essay
725 words
725 words

You are a member of a Homeland Security Task Force. You unit’s assignment is to investigate terrorist activities on U.S. soil. Your unit receives information that a terrorist cell has been activated in a major metropolitan city. However, the location and details of their mission is unknown. Subsequent to the alert, a local police department in your jurisdiction has apprehended a potential suspect on unrelated charges. The arrest was made at an abandoned warehouse that contained one laptop computer. Based on information revealed in the interrogation, it is believed the location, mission, and identities of the terrorist cell are contained in the laptop. Complete the following tasks: • Provide the case law that would allow the search of office computer of the suspect. • Detail the investigative technique used to trace the instant message communication. • Did you state the techniques used to accomplish the tasks? …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that they are members of a homeland security task force investigating terrorist activities on u.s. soil.
  • Explains that there are three types of warrants that one can obtain: basic, plain view, exigent, and warrantless.
  • Explains that the patriot act makes it easier for law enforcement to conduct searches and monitor communications. the informant gave enough information to get a warrant to search the laptop and all its files
  • Explains that the patriot act and surveillance gives authority to the agents to monitor terrorist suspects. the fourth amendment is slightly changed for terrorist attacks and terrorist like groups.
  • Explains the importance of getting an experienced tech to thoroughly extract the instance messages and the integrity of the digital evidence.

The first is the basic where you have the time obtain a warrant and evidence to support a search on the property or in this case a laptop (United States v. Leon, 1984). The second is a plain view search warrant where if you see that there are criminal acts or illegal substances visible you have cause to search. It doesn’t require a search because you seen the evidence with your eyes. The third is exigent circumstances where agents are aware and know for a fact that evidence is going to be destroyed and require a warrantless search of the property (United States v. Arias). The degree of urgency that is involved and the time one has in preserving or losing evidence. If there are exigent circumstances before evidence may be lost a warrantless search and seizure is taken into count like the case United States v. David, 1991. It is always necessary to obtaining a warrant, unless the evidence is about to be removed or destroyed and the possibility of danger (United States v. Reed,

Get Access