Fluent Essays

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: Textbook: Chapter 17. Also, Chapter 11 and 12 from Week 6 might still be relevant. Lesson Minimum of 2 scholarly sources in addition to the textbook. Instructions This is Part II of the assignment you submitted in Week 6. Using the case outline (Part I: How the Courts Address or Respect Our Rights as Citizens) you submitted in Week 6, prepare and submit a presentation, which will either be a narrated PowerPoint, a Kaltura Video, or some other format as approved by your instructor. Be sure to verify the presentation format with your instructor before starting work on this assignment. The presentation Point presentation will need to include: Name the case Discuss the facts of the case Discuss the history of the case (what laws or legal action was taken) Discuss the issues or the facts of the case and legal questions the court must decide Discuss if the courts decision or holdings was for the plaintiff or for the defendant and what were the reasons for the decision? Discuss the concurring and dissenting opinions from the judge or if a jury trial, the jury. Important: In this assignment, you are expected to elaborate the points you made in the prior assignment in Week 6. This assignment will be graded on your strength to elaborate and explain the facts of the case and proper use of visual aids, good narration, and presenting to the case and how well you stick to the case. For example, if you are using the PowerPoint, you are also expected to include proper visuals that are relevant to the case. Do not copy-paste the outline into this and call it complete.  Part II: How the Courts Address or Respect Our Rights as Citizens – Presentation Week 8: Part II: How the Courts Address or Respect Our Rights as Citizens – Presentation Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFacts of the Case 30 pts Identifies numerous facts that go above and beyond highlighting the importance of the case and make the case foundations explicit. 26 pts Identifies a number of facts that highlight the importance of the case and make the case foundations explicit. 23 pts Identifies several facts that make the case foundation clear but omits at least one important fact. 20 pts Identifies some facts but omits more than one important fact crucial to understanding this case. 0 pts No effort 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHistory of the Case 30 pts The presentation covers an exceptional level of case history to make the legal actions surrounding the case clear and detailed. 26 pts The presentation demonstrates points of case history surrounding the legal actions of the course case. 23 pts The presentation provides brief points of case history surrounding the legal actions of the course case; however, additional explanation is needed to make the history clear and in context 20 pts The presentation provides such a minimal number of points of case history surrounding the legal actions that the history of the case is not clear. 0 pts No effort 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLegal Questions 30 pts The presentation clearly points to the specific civil liberties issues that the courts had to determine to issue a verdict. 26 pts The presentation points to the general civil liberties issues that the courts had to determine to issue a verdict. 23 pts The presentation provides some information regarding the general civil liberties issues that the courts had to determine to issue a verdict, but at times is unclear or inaccurate. 20 pts The presentation is not clear or largely inaccurate regarding the general civil liberties issues that the courts had to determine to issue a verdict. 0 pts No effort 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDecision or Holdings 20 pts The presentation clearly lists whether the court ruled for the plaintiff or the defendant along with the reasoning provided by the court and key details directly related to understanding the ruling. Any holdings or court imposed conditions as part of the verdict are also listed. 17 pts The presentation lists whether the court ruled for the plaintiff or the defendant along with the reasoning provided by the court but includes few details related to the ruling.Holdings or court imposed conditions are not clear. 15 pts The presentation lists whether the court ruled for the plaintiff or the defendant but the included reasoning is unclear. Holdings or court imposed conditions are also omitted. 13 pts The presentation lists whether the court ruled for the plaintiff or the defendant but omits the reasoning. Holdings or court imposed conditions are either omitted or incoherent. 0 pts No effort 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVerdict: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 30 pts The presentation clearly points to the verdict and provides clear detail of the affirming and dissenting opinions. 30 pts The presentation points to the verdict and provides information on the affirming and dissenting opinions. 23 pts The presentation provides the verdict but information on the affirming and dissenting opinions is minimal. 20 pts The presentation does not provide the verdict and/or information on the affirming and dissenting opinions is unclear or lacking. 0 pts No effort 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation: Overall 40 pts The presentation includes all required components, is visually clean and appealing with effective use of visuals and includes narration. 35 pts The presentation includes most required components, makes effective use of visuals, and includes narration. 31 pts The presentation includes few of the components, has some visuals, and includes narration. 27 pts The presentation does not include most of required components, is visually hard to follow with no visuals, and has limited or no narration. 0 pts No effort 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation: Narration and Delivery 40 pts Audible and clear volume without ambient noise, has a good pace, and stays to the topic. Overall excellent delivery. 35 pts Audible and clear volume, generally with good clarity and little or no ambient noise, has a good pace, with few or no interruptions and stays to the topic. Overall very good delivery. 31 pts Quite clear and audible with some volume or ambient noise issues but still has a good pace with some interruptions but generally stays to the topic. Delivery needs improvement. 27 pts Narration has volume and audio issues with background noise, and often trails off the topic. Delivery needs major improvement. 0 pts No effort 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting and Visuals: Mechanics and Usage and Relevance of the Visuals 20 pts The writing is concise, free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Effective use of visuals 17 pts The writing is free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Visual aids used adequately 15 pts The writing contains some errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Visual aids could be improved. 13 pts The student presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the message. Visual aids used poorly 0 pts No effort 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitations 10 pts The references are provided in accurate APA format. 8 pts The references contain a few minor error in APA format. 7 pts The references contain several minor errors in APA format. 6 pts The references contain major errors in APA format. 0 pts No effort 10 pts COURTS AND CITIZENS’ RIGHTS 5 How the Courts Respect Citizens’ Rights Olawoyin Ibitoye Political Science Professor Funk 08/15/2021 How the Courts Respect Citizens’ Rights: People State of Illinois v. McCavitt Case Summary The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits law enforcement agencies from fishing around in people’s electronic devices, searching for evidence to prove a crime. Police officers must have a search warrant specifying the machine and evidence to be searched. A civil rights case between the People State of Illinois and McCavitt was filed to determine the limits on law enforcement agencies to search a person’s electronic device under a search warrant. In 2013, the Illinois State Police obtained a search warrant to search John McCavitt’s home and seize his computer. They later received another warrant to search the computer for evidence of sexual offenses. The evidence obtained was used to charge McCavitt with two counts of sexual crimes in 2014. However, McCavitt was acquitted on both charges and requested a copy of his hard drive from the police. The police conducted another search for evidence of other crimes against McCavitt without a new warrant. They found images of child pornography, obtained a search warrant to search for more pictures, and successfully convicted McCavitt of possession of child pornography. McCavitt appealed that the police officers unlawfully searched the information on his hard drive without a new warrant. The Illinois Appellate Court agreed, and the State appealed to the Illinois Supreme court. Case Outline Title People of the State of Illinois (Plaintiff) v. John McCavitt (Defendant), 2019 IL APP (3d) 170830 Facts of the Case John McCavitt, a former Peoria police officer, was charged with 17 cases of child pornography based on evidence obtained from his hard drive. McCavitt filed a motion arguing that the search of his hard drive was unlawful since the law enforcement officers did not get a new warrant after failing to convict him of sexual offenses in the previous search. The jury found McCavitt guilty of 15 counts of child pornography, and the trial court sentenced him on 11 counts to five years in prison, probation, and mandatory supervised release (Illinois Official Reports, 2020). McCavitt raised three issues on appeal and argued that he was denied his rights to substantive due process, a speedy trial, and effective assistance of counsel. History of the Case On July 17, 2013, the Illinois State Police obtained a search warrant to search McCavitt’s home. The warrant authorized the law enforcement officers to seizure any electronic device in search of evidence relating to sexual offenses committed by the defendant. The officers seized McCavitt’s computer. On July 24, 2013, the law enforcement officers sought and obtained another search warrant authorizing them to search McCavitt’s computer for any digital images and aggravated criminal sexual assault evidence (Illinois Official Reports, 2020). Detective Jeff Avery, a sheriff, and forensic examiner, examined McCavitt’s computer, removed the hard drive, and made an exact copy of it using EnCase software and stored it in the detective’s computer. McCavitt was charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault and was not found guilty of all the charges. The law enforcement officers initiated another investigation involving a forensic analysis of the Encase file stored on Avery’s computer. James Feehan, a computer forensics examiner, saw two images of child pornography, which led to McCavitt’s arrest based on unauthorized video recording. Feehan sought and obtained a search warrant to search McCavitt’s EnCase file searching for child pornography images. McCavitt was charged with seven counts of aggravated child pornography, a class 2 felony, and three counts of child pornography. McCavitt filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the forensic examiner had no authority to obtain and examine the contents of the EnCase file. Feehan asserted that he did not need a search warrant to get the Encase file because McCavitt’s computer was previously seized under a lawful search warrant. McCavitt was found guilty of 15 counts of child pornography. The trial court sentenced McCavitt to five years in prison on one count and mandatory supervised release of three years to life. The defendant was also sentenced to 48months probation on the remaining ten counts. Legal Questions 1. Whether McCavitt’s substantive due process rights were violated 2. Whether McCavitt was denied his right to a speedy trial 3. Whether McCavitt received ineffective assistance of counsel Decision or Holdings McCavitt’s right to substantive due process was not violated. According to Greenberg & Page (2018), Congress and States foster respect to human rights through constitutional and statutory provisions that protect individuals against privacy violations in financial and health data areas. However, states like Illinois have explicit provisions relating to privacy rights, such as protection from unreasonable searches and seizures for electronic data. The statute recognizes that a person has heightened privacy in the restroom (McCaffrey, 2018). However, the defendant did not expect privacy since his EnCase file was seized under a valid warrant. A person’s expectation of privacy is reduced once an item has been lawfully seized and searched, and ensuing searches may be conducted without a warrant as long as the things remain in police custody. The second decision is that McCavitt’s right to a speedy trial was upheld. In Illinois, a criminal defendant has both a constitutional and a statutory right to a speedy trial with 120 days of being taken into custody unless the defendant causes delays (Ahmed, Munir, & Khan, 2020). The defendant caused the delay in the trial from February 15 to April 4 following his request to change from a jury to a bench trial. McCavitt received effective counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel is given where counsel provided representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced the defendant. Verdict and Opinion The court concluded that the search and seizure of McCavitt’s EnCase file were reasonable because he had reduced expectations of privacy in the hard drive’s content after it was seized, copied, and searched previously using a valid warrant. The detective also suspended his search of pornographic images until he obtained a new search warrant. Dissenting opinions from the appellate court held that the circuit court should have granted McCavitt a motion to suppress. They also held that the defendant’s expectations of privacy reset once he was acquitted of sexual assault. Hence, the police were not entitled to retain any portion of the copy once the first trial ended. Conclusion The case implied that a person retains a privacy interest in their electronic data, whether stored in the original hard drive or the EnCase replica. The ruling in the case emphasized the importance of limiting the scope of a digital search. The state had no authority to retain the data to initiate another search for an entirely different investigation, at least not without finding a probable cause and obtaining a warrant. Permitting law enforcement agencies to exploit search and seizure doctrine beyond the scope of a valid warrant risk authorizing any search of digital information to unreasonable searches. References Ahmed, N., Munir, B., & Khan, N. A. (2020). An Assessment of Right to Fair Trial Under the. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bakht-Munir-2/publication/350324071_22_an-assessment-of-right-to-fair-trial-under-the-constitution-of-pakistan-1973-a-comparative-study-of-the-us-and-pakistan/links/6059fbdb92851cd8ce6185a4/22-an-assessment-of-right-to-fair-trial-under-the-constitution-of-pakistan-1973-a-comparative-study-of-the-us-and-pakistan.pdf Greenberg, E. S & Page, B. I. (2018). The Struggle for Democracy, 2018 Elections and Updates Edition. (12th ed.). Pearson) Illinois Official Reports. (2020). Retrieved August 14 2021, from https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/085b16f8-8ef7-473f-b9d1-0e08b1e00370/3170830.pdf McCaffrey, J. (2018). Fourth Amendment Protections in Common Areas of Apartment Buildings. Retrieved August 14 2021, from https://www.illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/