Computer Hackers and Search and Seizure United States vs. Jarrett

Computer Hackers Case Study

Hackers are people portrayed as super-criminals who have powers that enable them roam the internet searching for valuable information that is contained in an individual's or company's computer. The article is about a case of the United States v. Jarrett.in Jarrett the issue was if the prosecution was in apposition to use information that had been obtained by the search of private hackers of the defendant's personal computer. A computer hacker known as unknown user had hacked into steigner's computer and stumbled into evidence of child pornography. He went ahead to send emails containing the images and Steiger's personal information to the Alabama police department. Steiner was later arrested and he was convicted and sentenced to 171/2 years in prison. Unknown user was not to be prosecuted for hacking since he was a foreigner and thus was not subject to the laws in the U.S. He later gave out information about another suspect of child pornography Jarrett and was still assured that he would not be a target of law enforcement for his activities of hacking. He spoke freely of how he was engaged in hacking activities and vowed to continue the search of child pornographers using the same methods that he had employed for the arrest of Steiger and Jarrett.

However Jarret made a move to suppress the evidence by execution of the search warrant based on the government had violated his fourth amendment right by using information that unknown user had produced to secure the search warrant. When the court was analyzing the issue of suppression it looked at whether there was an agency of relationship that existed between the hacker and government and went ahead to apply a traditional two part agency relationship test to a problem that was ultra-modern in order for them to achieve a result that was flawed. Instead of requiring the government actively acquiesce in the search for the establishment of the agency of the relationship, the court ought to have looked to see whether there was passive acquiescence. This is what such a strict standard is required so as to protect an individual's fourth amendment rights against seizures and unreasonable searches in situations that deal with hackers that end up turning information that is incriminatory to the government.

Unknown user had acted without the government suggestion I the Steigners case this was not true for the search that he did on Jarrett's computer.in the Jarrett's case there was a significant encouragement from law enforcement officers, specific requests to continue helping the police with investigations and he was assured that the information he had revealed was valuable and could help save lives. There were also requests to maintain future contact with law enforcement officers and the surety that he would not be prosecuted .this clearly shows that unknown user had established an agency relationship with the government following Stringer's matter and by the time he was hacking Jarrett's computer the government side had so much knowledge.

In the determination of whether the government had acquiesced the court put out that there must have been evidence of the participation of the government either by instigating or initiating private action but the mere knowledge and passive acquiescence was not sufficient. The government thus conceded that there was a second primary factor that the motives unknown user had arose from the interest that he had in assisting enforcement of the law. Thus the court looked mainly at whether the government had known of and had acquiesced in the search that unknown user had done in a manner that was sufficient enough for the transformation of unknown user into a government agent and hence rendering the search as being unconstitutional.