Author Question: Evaluate the following statement: Warrants are not required for searches in ... (Read 108 times)

JGIBBSON · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Evaluate the following statement: Warrants are not required for searches in cyberspace.

Question 2

Ann McEachron is an administrative assistant at a large international accounting firm. Her supervisor has asked her to destroy boxes of documents from an audit the firm conducted 2 years ago. The firm generally keeps records for 7 years, because of potential tax liability and issues, but it has destroyed documents earlier in cases in which the amount of paperwork becomes overwhelming. Ann wonders about the request, but complies with her supervisor's order. The company that was the subject of the audit is currently under criminal investigation and the partner in the accounting firm who conducted the audit is aware of that investigation. It is a federal crime to destroy documents that are involved in or could potentially be involved in either a civil or criminal investigation. Evaluate the criminal liability of Ann, her supervisor and the partner for the destruction of the documents. Would your answer be different if Ann had read in the newspaper about the criminal investigation of the company?

14vl19 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The statement is not entirely correct. There are still rights of privacy on the Internet. For example, the FBI and other government agencies could not have access to your private account e-mail without a warrant. However, there are some aspects of the Internet that are more public in nature, such as the visits to sites and the use of information from sites because of the records that are maintained by companies. The key is the expectation of privacy.

Answer to Question 2

The issue is whether Ann and her supervisor had intent. It is clear that the audit partner had intent, however. The fact that he did not perform the physical act of destruction does not shield him from liability under the criminal statute. Supervisors, officers and directors can be held criminally liable for the conduct of those who report to them. If it can be shown that Ann was aware of the investigation of the company, then she develops the requisite intent. Her lack of knowledge of the law is not a defense to the destruction.