For example in "Bonita P. Bourke, et al. v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.," (California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Case No. B068705, July 26, 1993). The plaintiffs said the company's review of e-mail messages over a company system constituted an invasion of their right of privacy in violation of both the California Constitution and common law. But the court found that plaintiffs lacked a reasonable, objective expectation of privacy that their sexual and explicit e-mails would be private, because the company had given them notice e-mail could be reviewed without their knowledge or consent. It should be noted that the right to privacy is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, but is generally accepted to exist implicitly in the penumbra of the Constitution. Another legal protection sought by employees embroiled in email workplace privacy issues is the 4 thAmendment which explicitly provides for "[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects," and protects people "against unreasonable searches and seizures" (Rich, 1994). But even under the 4th Amendment, expectations of privacy are not guaranteed. In "United States v. Philip Bunnell" (Crim No. 02-13-B-S (D. Maine, May 10, 2002) the defendant's motion to suppress various pornographic images found in the recycle bin of his university computer was suppressed. Although the personal computer maintained by defendant at his home, it was issued used by the defendant at the university...
However, because what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy remains quite subjective and difficult to determine, it is likely that a variety of rulings interpreting this notion will be handed down in different lower courts, and one day the Supreme Court may need to establish a more solid and fixed stance upon the ever-changing world of privacy in the age of e-mail and the Internet.
The prima facie evidence provision in this statute blurs the line between these two meanings of a burning cross. As interpreted by the jury instruction, the provision chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that a State will prosecute -- and potentially convict -- somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect. Id. At 556. In his
" (GAO, 2006) Issues involved are stated to include "the dispersal of residents in low-income communities to other neighborhoods or cities." (GAO, 2006) it is stated that an inherent right of "sovereignty, eminent domain in a government's power to take private property for a public use while fairly compensating the property owners." (GAO, 2006) There have been actions in state legislatures toward prohibition of "certain eminent domain practices, such as preventing
In addition to the argument that the law's requirement of hanging the Ten Commandments is contrary to a country with no established religion, the commandments were also serving no functional purpose but a religious one. In many schools, the teaching of religion and religious ideas occurs in social studies, history, and culture classes. This contributes to students' understanding of different viewpoints, heritages, and the foundations of countries and institutions. Thus,
In the case, Carty was a passenger of a vehicle operated by another individual. The vehicle was stopped for speeding, and the driver of the vehicle was asked to sign a form of consent to search the vehicle. During the search, the officer did a pat down of both Carty and the driver, at which time cocaine was found on Carty. The signed consent to search did not include
Constitutional Law The case of the 'Lawrence vs. Texas' of June 26, 2003, was in a nutshell about privacy rights and 'equal protection' under the law, and whether 'sodomy' can come under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Who were the Petitioner(s) and the Respondent(s)? The case deals with two gay men, or in other words, homosexual men, that is, men who prefer partners of the same sex, who happened to be
If Harry had been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, the outcome of his case would be dramatically different. The Supreme Court has determined that sobriety checkpoints are legal, as long as they are conducted in a neutral manner. Stopping all approaching cars meets the neutrality requirement. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also determined that the use of drug dogs does not violate one's Fourth Amendment rights; commentators have called this
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now