Crumans fourth amendment rights were violated. In the case Peter Cruman V. State of Olympus, Peter Cruman was accused of conducting a facebook group used to communicate sales of marijuana on the campus of his school. The principle of the school never would have suspected Cruman if it weren't for an anonymous tip sent in indicating it was he. This tip caused principle Lyons to call Cruman to the principal's office and investigate. After hours of investigating Cruman and asking him to open his facebook account, Cruman finally is pushed to do so after denying the involvement in the illegal group. Therefore in this case Principle Lyon violated Crumans fourth amendment rights by making him open his private facebook account and searching it. Two
…show more content…
Cruman said no to logging into his private facebook page but after hours of investigating, principle Lyon made him log on causing a violation of privacy. In the United States V. Warshak case, the federal government wanted to search emails from an Internet Service Provider (ISP) but there was no legitimate warrant and if they had searched them, it would have went against the ISP’s fourth amendment. Just like the Cruman case there is no valid evidence that he was involved in the facebook group therefor not creating a reasonable doubt for a warrant. Since the facebook account was private, and Cruman denied involvement in the group there was no other way to open his facebook account without a warrant, therefor violating his fourth amendment rights. Now, in the case Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. Moreno’s rights were broken due to Hanford violating her privacy online. In the Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. case it states “a serious invasion of the privacy interest… this category identifies a distinct interest associated with an individual's control of the process or products of his or her personal life on social media.” (Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel Inc.) This shows that when Cruman said no to logging in his private facebook page, he had every right to stand by that
Cruman said no to logging into his private facebook page but after hours of investigating, principle Lyon made him log on causing a violation of privacy. In the United States V. Warshak case, the federal government wanted to search emails from an Internet Service Provider (ISP) but there was no legitimate warrant and if they had searched them, it would have went against the ISP’s fourth amendment. Just like the Cruman case there is no valid evidence that he was involved in the facebook group therefor not creating a reasonable doubt for a warrant. Since the facebook account was private, and Cruman denied involvement in the group there was no other way to open his facebook account without a warrant, therefor violating his fourth amendment rights. Now, in the case Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. Moreno’s rights were broken due to Hanford violating her privacy online. In the Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. case it states “a serious invasion of the privacy interest… this category identifies a distinct interest associated with an individual's control of the process or products of his or her personal life on social media.” (Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel Inc.) This shows that when Cruman said no to logging in his private facebook page, he had every right to stand by that