legal aspects of cybersecurity Frank, Mac, Dennis, Dee, and Charlie live together in the same house that sits on a large plot of land. An RV camper, with very large windows, sits 50 yards away from the house, and both the house and camper are enclosed by the same fencing. The gang is “cooking” meth in both the house and the camper, and law enforcement is trying to gather evidence before it is too late. Police also suspect that the gang is selling meth to users on the other side of town. To gather evidence, police have installed a GPS on the under carriage of their jeep and plan to monitor its location over the course of thirty-two days. Based on established and binding precedent, do the police need a warrant? A. Yes, because the Scalia majority in the Jones case reasoned that installation of a GPS device by police constitutes a physical trespass. B. Yes, because the Alito majority in the Jones case reasoned individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements. C. No, because the police are only monitoring the location for thirty-two days. D. No, because you never need a warrant to track a person’s public movements.

legal aspects of cybersecurity

Frank, Mac, Dennis, Dee, and Charlie live together in the same house that sits on a large
plot of land. An RV camper, with very large windows, sits 50 yards away from the
house, and both the house and camper are enclosed by the same fencing. The gang is
“cooking” meth in both the house and the camper, and law enforcement is trying to
gather evidence before it is too late.

Police also suspect that the gang is selling meth to users on the other side of town.
To gather evidence, police have installed a GPS on the under carriage of their jeep and
plan to monitor its location over the course of thirty-two days. Based on established and
binding precedent, do the police need a warrant?
A. Yes, because the Scalia majority in the Jones case reasoned that installation of a
GPS device by police constitutes a physical trespass.
B. Yes, because the Alito majority in the Jones case reasoned individuals have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements.
C. No, because the police are only monitoring the location for thirty-two days.
D. No, because you never need a warrant to track a person’s public movements.