King Case Study Individual Paper
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…
The 5th Amendment was also argued in this case recalling “when Agent Kyle interviewed him at the Williamsport FBI office without administering Miranda warnings… (and the) disposition of this question turns on whether that interview constituted a “custodial interrogation” (FindLaw, 2016). It was later revealed that King was made aware that he was free to leave at any time and his admission was made voluntarily without a request made by him to end it or leave the building. In citing Oregon v. Mathiason, it was found “that King was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda, so the District Court did not err in finding no violation of King's Fifth Amendment rights” (FindLaw, 2016).
Application to Future Cases This case has paved the way for questions about the 4th and 5th Amendments in future cybercrime cases. It has now been clarified that the 4th Amendment does not protect someone from the removal of their hardware from community property that has been relinquished during an investigation to authorities. The 5th Amendment was challenged but not found to have been ignored in this case. Now, cases in question in the future will have this case to reference in making similar decisions regarding the 4th and 5th Amendments.
The purpose of this work was to discuss the relevancy of the court case the United States of America v.