I need 100 word each
1. Competing Interests?
Due process and efficient law enforcement are two competing interests of criminal procedural law. Are both of these interests deserving of equal weight in considering constitutional protections?
Is one interest more vital to the best practice of criminal law?
Explain/justify your argument.
2.Constitutional Protection in China?
In Chapter 4, Deibert describes the Great Firewall of China, and the subsequent limitations on cyber-freedom that anyone accessing the internet in China faces. Would these limitations be possible under the US Constitution? In what other ways do the policies of these two countries differ? Cite specific examples from the text to support your argument.
3. Terry? Meet the Interwebs.
In Chapter 7, Deibert describes the practice of “other requests.”Do “other requests” constitute searches under US constitutional law? Or are they the digital equivalent of Terry stops? Explain and cite examples from this week’s materials.
4. Taking Down Koobface (Artifact)
In Chapter 8, Deibert describes the group Koobface and its pay-per-click and per-per-install schemes. Find an artifact that contains a similar type of operation in the US. Discuss what options law enforcement may have to investigate a similar scheme and what constitutional protections may require of investigators.
5. Warrant Service Compliance?
In Chapter 4, Worrall outlines four important issues related to service of arrest warrants, including: The “knock and announce rule”, property damage, permissible degree of force, and media presence.
How were this considerations addressed in the videos included this week? Does the depicted conduct appear to fall short of the Supreme Court’s rulings?
Clearly explain your response.
6. Stingray v. Fourth Amendment?
The Kelly article explains law enforcement’s use of the Stingray device to conduct investigations. One problematic aspect of this investigatory tool lies with oversight of its practical application.
How should courts reviewing an officer’s request for a warrant restrict or limit collection of collateral data?
Does use of the Stingray violate fourth amendment protections, or is crime prevention a sufficient exception to individuals’ privacy interests?
Clearly explain/justify your argument.