King Case Study Individual Paper

978 Words4 Pages
U.S. v. King Case Study
Elise Flanagan
BCC 402
Bobby Kemp
14 March 2016

The purpose of this work is to discuss the relevancy of the court case the United States of America v. Richard D. King, Jr. and the influence it had on future cybercrime cases. A description will be given as to how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are applied to cybercrimes, as well as an explanation how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were addressed in this case. Further explanation on how the King ruling may apply to other cases involving computers or other devices that contain electronic evidence is provided.
The 4th and 5th Amendments Applied To Cybercrimes The 4th Amendment can be applied to cybercrimes, but not the 5th Amendment. However, the 4th
…show more content…
A brief summary of the events leading up to the case provided through the University of Phoenix materials includes King’s involvement in email communications with Larkin, the mother of a 2 year old girl who would later be abused by King sexually. Because Larkin and the child, known as “Peanut”, were residing in King’s residence, law enforcement would serve an arrest warrant there against Larkin and to rescue Peanut from abuse by her caretakers. King walked the officers to Larkin, who willingly gave up her computer to investigators. King objected that his hard drive was in her computer and did not give permission for officers to take it, but they did so regardless of his objections. King would later be connected to further criminal activity and willingly went to speak with law enforcement, where he made admissions to his involvement. King would later try to have his admission and other evidence obtained through investigating Larkin as well hidden when he was charged and faced trial for his crimes (University, 2016).
In regard to the 4th Amendment, King asserted that “the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered his house on February 19, 2004 and seized his hard drive without a warrant or his consent” (FindLaw, 2016). Because the owner of the computer hardware was disputing the legality of its removal from someone else’s property without his permission, King
Get Access