Running head: LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 1

Legal Study

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 2

Legal Study

According to the federal court of America, violating the child pornography statute is a

severe offense. The primary rationale for prohibiting the creation and dissemination of child

pornography is to protect children from sexual abuse that may occur during the pornographic

production process. Distributing any visual material that depicts a minor participating in sexual

behavior, including photographs or films, is prohibited (Gillespie, 2018). Additionally, the

legislation bans the advertising or promotion of sexual material aimed towards children.

Possession of child pornography is also a violation of the legislation against child pornography.

According to the complaint filed against Jacob, the defendant, Jacob was detained for possessing

child pornography. The FBI conducted an investigation using file-sharing software that resulted

in the defendant's detention after his IP address was identified as a violation of the child

pornography statute. Examining the legal problems that resulted in Jacob's detention is critical

for developing the best defense for him and legally suppressing the collected evidence. The aim

of this article is to examine the legal study of child pornography and the laws that regulate this

crime in the United States of America, as well as the laws that protect an individual's right to

privacy.

Under the law, every person has the right to privacy. If the authorities need a search

warrant with probable cause to search an individual's premises for evidence in connection with a

particular case, they must get one. According to Perry (2016), an improper search of a person's

premises without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment under US law. Another legal

problem in Jacob's case is the breach of the Fourth Amendment's privacy protection clause and

the government's unlawful interference into their private. In Jacob's case, the police breach many

2
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 3

of the Fourth Amendment's requirements set out in the United States constitution; Jacob is

therefore a victim of the violation.

Oklahoma Child Pornography Charges

Hunter Jacob James Hope of Muldrow, age 21, engaged in a pattern of conduct that included

threatening to share sensitive (typically naked or partially naked) images of minors unless the

minors engaged in sexual acts with him or provided him with sexually explicit images of

themselves via the internet, according to court documents.

Hope pleaded guilty to seven counts of producing child pornography and one count of possessing

child pornography. According to the terms of his signed plea agreement, he faces a prison

sentence of 262 to 327 months. A federal district court judge will decide the sentence based on

the United States Sentencing Guidelines and any applicable statutes. Hope is also obliged to

make restitution as part of the plea agreement's conditions.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicholas L. McQuaid of the Department of Justice's Criminal

Division, Acting United States Attorney Christopher J. Wilson of the Eastern District of

Oklahoma, and Special Agent in Charge Ryan L. Spradlin of ICE's Homeland Security

Investigations (HSI) Dallas made the announcement.

The issue was investigated by HSI. Trial Attorney Gwendelynn Bills of the Justice Department's

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section is prosecuting the case (CEOS). This prosecution was

brought as part of the Department of Justice's Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative

launched in May 2006 to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Project Safe Childhood, coordinated by US Attorneys' Offices and CEOS, marshals federal,

3
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 4

state, and local resources to more effectively identify, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who

exploit children online, as well as to identify and rescue victims.

Child Pornography Prevention

How can we keep children's pornography out of their hands? By promoting informed

awareness, which is defined as self-awareness that is considerate, beneficial, and free of

judgment and shame.

To begin, have a discussion with your children about online pornography. When

addressing online pornography with your children, you MUST include child pornography in your

conversation. A Google image search will show an unauthorized image. With your children,

discuss what they should do if they come across these pictures. Examine any images your child

may have seen.

Second, we must acknowledge that pornographic addiction is a real problem among

adolescents and adults. Academics can argue about the existence of pornographic addiction.

Allow for debate. Pornographic addiction is real, as those of us who work in the trenches

understand. Experts that have been specifically trained to handle this issue may provide

treatment. Speak with a friend or family member who is suffering from a pornographic addiction.

Inform them of their eligibility for treatment. Treatment is always private, and no one is required

to know unless the patient wishes for them to.

Thirdly, keep in mind that inadvertent exposure to child pornography is uncommon. The

majority of people think it is difficult to get child pornography. This is not true. Anyone who has

downloaded pornography through a filesharing application has almost definitely encountered

child pornography. Anyone who has spent a long amount of time viewing pornography online

has almost definitely encountered child pornography. This does not mean they are looking for it;

4
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 5

rather, it means they have very certainly stumbled across it. Even if you were not searching for it

but accidentally downloaded a thumbnail file containing a pornographic image or video of a

child, you risk arrest. To minimize accidental exposure to child pornography, individuals should

avoid file sharing apps. You may quickly download hundreds of images, but some are almost

certainly illegal. Eliminate file-sharing programs.

Finally, it's important to realize that even if you're addicted to pornography, particularly

child pornography, you may get therapy. While each state has its own set of laws, the majority of

states do not require therapists to disclose their use of child pornography. Recent legislation

(2015) in Pennsylvania and California increased a therapist's disclosure requirement to include

seeing child pornography. If you live in a state that requires reporting, you may still seek

treatment for pornographic addiction; however, you cannot claim that you are also viewing

illegal pornography. While this is obviously not optimal in terms of therapy, it is still better than

nothing.

For a variety of reasons, individuals acquire child pornography. Some began studying it

as a young adolescent and have never stopped. Perhaps their pornographic addiction has

progressed to the point where they need more illegal material to get a "high." Certain people are

experiencing flashbacks to their childhood trauma after seeing images of child sexual assault.

Certain people actively seek out the material because they are attracted to children. By accident,

some people stumble upon child pornography. Regardless of how a someone obtains child

pornography, having it is illegal, and the individual may face prosecution and placement on a sex

offender registry.

Correct Legal Precedent

5
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 6

Similar legal problems have arisen in the American judicial system prior to Jacob's case.

Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) included police officers conducting an unlawful search and arrest on

the respondent's property. The cops recovered illicit narcotics during the unlawful search, which

were seen in plain view. The officer gained entry to the property with Gail Fischer's permission,

who claimed to have few personal belongings at the residence. Carthew (2019) argues that an

unwarranted search is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the person consenting to the

search has shared control over the property. Fischer no longer resided in the flat, and therefore,

despite the fact that a few of her belongings remained, the search constituted a breach of

Rodriguez's privacy (Buskirk, 2007). The court rejected the police's argument that they did not

breach the Fourth Amendment because they had reasonable grounds to think Fischer could

lawfully provide entry.

According to the lawsuit, Fischer needed joint authority in order to get entry to

Rodriguez's residence without his permission, which she lacked. Additionally, the court ruled

that the police's reasonableness in obtaining authorization from the former roommate is not

established by their judgment but by the search's purpose (Buskirk, 2007). The court declared the

search illegal owing to the lack of legal power and the unreasonable consent.

In Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980), the defendant was found guilty of possessing controlled

drugs recovered from a companion's pocketbook. The police came at the home with an arrest

warrant for Marques but were unable to locate him. The cops detected the odor of marijuana and

obtained a search warrant to search the residence for an illegal substance. Two police return an

hour later with a search warrant and discover controlled substances in the pocketbook of one of

the occupants. According to Perry (2016), the defendant was detained after claiming possession

6
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 7

of the narcotics discovered in the handbag. He appeals his conviction, claiming Fourth

Amendment protection.

The Fourth Amendment is violated when an unlawful detention occurs as a consequence

of a violation of a person's privacy. The defendant asserts that he was convicted as a result of an

unlawful arrest and search of the residence he was visiting. The defendant was required to

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the search was illegal and that his privacy had been

violated. The court dismissed his allegations since he had previously acknowledged possession

of the narcotics, which had no bearing on his claims of unlawful detention. Additionally, the

money and knives discovered during the search justified an arrest. The court reasoned that his

admission to drug possession constituted probable grounds for a legal arrest, regardless of

whether the arrest preceded the search (Perry, 2016). Thus, given the circumstances, the

authorities did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis of the Facts of the Precedent and Current Situations

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution focuses on the people's right to

privacy and to feel safe against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to Brennan-

Marquez and Henderson (2018), the Amendment establishes circumstances in which the

Amendment's requirements are breached. It is primarily concerned with safeguarding people'

rights to privacy and freedom from unwarranted invasions. Individuals are protected by the

Amendment only in situations deemed unreasonable by the law. To persuade a judge to suppress

evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, the person must establish that they are the victim of the

violation. If the claimant can demonstrate that the government violated a reasonable expectation

of privacy, they are protected by the Amendment (Carthew, 2019). Additionally, the Amendment

argues that items taken in plain view do not deserve Fourth Amendment protection. Individuals

7
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 8

lose protection under the Amendment if they agree to or do not object to specific evidence

discovered in their possession after an unlawful search.

Individuals are protected by the fourth Amendment if the alleged behavior falls within its

scope. The FBI conducts electronic surveillance in this case, using file-sharing software, in order

to hunt out child pornography statute offenders. Electronic surveillance is a nonconsensual

method of obtaining information, which is a breach of privacy (Gray, 2017). Jacob is violating

the Fourth Amendment because he expects reasonable protection of his private. Jacob truly

thinks his online activity should be private; therefore, electronic monitoring is a violation of the

Fourth Amendment unless there is a reasonable cause for the surveillance, since violation of a

person's expectation of privacy comes within the Fourth Amendment's definition of a search. The

cops obtained Jacob's personal information after acquiring his IP address in order to conduct an

investigation into his home. Jacob's roommate consents to the unjustified search. Without Jacob's

permission, they take his computer and an external storage device from his room. The Fourth

Amendment prevents the government from seizing an individual's property without a warrant

(Carthew, 2019). These acts violate Jacob's expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

According to Buskirk (2007), in a comparable prior case, Illinois v Rodriguez, the court rules in

favor of the respondent because the former roommate lacked common authority to justify a

search. According to the Fourth Amendment, a roommate may agree to a search of the shared

portions of the premises only. Jacob's room is private; therefore, the unjustified, nonconsensual

search constitutes a privacy invasion.

When the authorities take his laptop and external storage device and hack the equipment

to get access to the data, there is an invasion of privacy. Jacob does not agree to the government's

access to his gadgets, which violates the Fourth Amendment. After discovering child

8
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 9

pornographic evidence on the devices seized from Jacob's home, the police get an arrest order

and arrest him the next day. According to Brennan-Marquez and Henderson (2018), an unlawful

search happens immediately before, during, or shortly after a formal arrest is made. Thus, the

actions constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In contrast, the defendant loses Fourth

Amendment protection in the Rawlings v Kentucky case when the court decides that the money

and knife found during the search justify his official arrest (Perry, 2016). In Jacob's case, the

imprisonment is contrary to established precedent.

Individuals are protected by the Fourth Amendment if they refuse to agree to or accept

evidence discovered in their possession. When Jacob is apprehended, he affirms that he is not

aware of the contents of the laptop and external storage device. He claims to share the laptop

with his roommate, who is unable to use it while he is away. Jacob also claims to be unaware of

the software that is used to monitor his IP address. According to Brennan-Marquez and

Henderson (2018), a person has constitutional protection if they object to any link to evidence

obtained during a search. In contrast to the previous case of Rawlings v. Kentucky, the defendant

asserts possession of the restricted drug; as a result, he forfeits his Fifth Amendment protection

notwithstanding his allegation of unlawful search and arrest (Perry, 2016). Jacob should be

protected by the Fourth Amendment based on clear proof of a Fourth Amendment violation.

The Amendment protects reasonable search and seizure. Unjustified searches and

seizures of property are often considered unreasonable unless there is probable cause (Carthew,

2019). Without Jacob's permission, the police who search his room infringe on his privacy. In

contrast to two previous decisions, the respondent in Illinois v Rodriguez gets protection under

the Amendment, not a Fourth Amendment clause, since the police confiscated narcotics in plain

view. On the other hand, the defendant in Rawlings v Kentucky lost his Fourth Amendment

9
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 10

protection since the search was based on probable cause (Perry, 2016). He confessed to being in

possession of controlled drugs. As a result, the search of Jacob's home is irrational and infringes

on his right to privacy.

Opinion on the Most Likely Outcome

Jacob's case exemplifies a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Without probable

cause, the police conduct an unlawful search of his home and take his computer and storage

device without his permission. Additionally, the search breaches the Amendment's common

authority clause. Even though he claims ignorance of the sexual material on his electronic

gadget, the police continue to detain him. The defense should file a request to suppress the

evidence that was confiscated. The manner in which the evidence against Jacob was gathered

breaches the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The court

is likely to suppress the evidence obtained on the grounds that Jacob's roommate lacks the

common power to agree to a search of his room. Additionally, the unjustified search is irrational

and violates Jacob's privacy. Finally, since Jacob is unaware of the pornographic material on his

laptop and external storage device, the Fourth Amendment protects him from rights violations.

Jacob is almost certain to be cleared of the accusations leveled against him.

10
LEGAL BRIEF STUDY 11

References

Brennan-Marquez, K., & Henderson, S. E. (2018). Fourth Amendment Anxiety. Am. Crim. L.

Rev., 55, 1.

Buskirk, T. (2007). Constitutional Law: The Reasonableness Requirement and Fourth

Amendment Boundaries to Co-Occupant Consent. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 18, 475.

Carthew, A. (2019). Searches and Seizures-Fourth Amendment and Reasonableness in General:

Protection of Privacy Interests in the Digital Age. NDL Rev., 94, 197.

Gillespie, A. A. (2018). Child pornography. Information & Communications Technology

Law, 27(1), 30-54.

Gray, D. (2017). The fourth amendment in an age of surveillance. Cambridge University Press.

Perry, M. (2016). Search Incident to Probable Cause: The Intersection of Rawlings and

Knowles. Mich. L. Rev., 115, 109.

11