Discussion 1

Instructor :

The argue between Bet-air and Hall was valid.there was the violation of 4th ammendment rights.while
looking at the potential 4th amendment violation of rights,the two basic questions that Langvardt et. al
need to be examined are : 1) what is the difference between public property and private property? 2)
what is the importance of 4th amendment rights? these are important to adress so that the right of the
people, in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.This right
limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.and when we
talk about the privacy,the term "curtilage" is the one that needs to be examined.Curtilage means" an
area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it."the curtilage of the private home
and business means it counts as part of the home for many legal purposes, including searches and many
self-defense laws.

AJ:

I agree with you on this point.the trial of Bet-air to supress the evidences that was collected through the
search and seizure by agent Park indicates the failure of the company,that it cannot protect its private
property.where the 4th amendment protects the citizen's rights.The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated,and no warrants shall be issued.the search was reasonable there,beacuse due to the lack of
barricades and signage,the garbage was thought the public place and not the private property.due to this
lack,people thought it would be the public property and not the private one.so they violated the 4th
amendment rights. According to Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,Expectation of
privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy
protections.thats true,it could have ended up in a landfill and been recovered,if the documents were not
shredded.it could have used as the disposal land.but due to the public accessibility to the documents,it
would be difficult to protect the company.every company should learn the lesson how to properly
dispose the sensitive material.any sensitive material should be dispose within the limits of privacy
protection,so that the sensitive material could not be taken.

AJA:

I agree with you.its a fact that people have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, unless there is probable cause that
justifies the right to search. This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people,
their property, and their homes. warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on
an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having
expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not
reasonable.On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the
objects being searched are in plain view.so Due to special agent Parks obtaining the shredded
documents by using a road that he believed was public to gain access to the dumpster, was
considered reasonable.and there were no objection on this.if Bet-Air had mention it their private
property,or if there were any signage indicating it a private asset there would’ve been a
reasonable expectation to honor the privacy of Bet-Air. so it would be considered as the
violation of 4th amendment rights.however the precedent used for this decision in this regard
in California v. Greenwood,also proves the same thing.as there was no signage on the outer
side of the private area,so the search and seizure was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment .
If signs or barricades were up that listed the property as closed to the public then this evidence
could have been suppressed.4th amendment would not protect the garbage that is left on the
side of a public street is accessible to animals, children, scavengers snoops and other members
of society.so there should be proper signage and barricades that indicates the privacy
protection.

TARA:

It is right that the district court was not in error error for refusing to suppress the evidence found
in the dumpster. and the Court of Appeals also did not find any errors made by the prosecutor in
the closing statements.There wasn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment right of unreasonable
search and seizure.it was a publicly accessible dumpster that was not labeled private and the
road leading to the dumpster, though private, was not labeled as such. there is no reason that
can determine that the dumpster and the road leadin to it were private.if someone wants that
extent of privacy for his assets,them he/she should take proper measures to secure his/her
property.i agree with the case of oliver,which you stated.but Bet-Air had the dumpster in its
parkin lott,which was easily accessible to other business companies,even animals.for
commercial curtilage,Bet-air would have restrict the area with barriers and signage.A search
incident to lawful arrest allows an officer to search an arrestee and the items in his or her
possession.this is allowed in order to protect the officer.. The area where the dumpster was held
would have to be properly labeled, secured and meet the definition of curtilage.i would suggest
the same the the private property signs would be put in order to protect your property from
public.

Discussion 2

Hey Jenni,

You have mentioned all the aspects very clearly. I have found your response as an informative source.
there are certain rules both for publication and for presenting information about someone on any of the
public platforms. so, I think people must take care in this regard when it comes to publicly defaming a
person on the basis of some news which you are not sure about. In the scenario given to us disregard
Jones professional or personal background. If any of the columnists have publicly written something
about him in the newspaper then he must have to give the proper information about the negative
impacts he has seen in Jones. Second, yes people must be given the liberty of using the power of words
but not just on the basis of their opinion but on the basis of the proofs and evidence. no matter how that
columnist has attacked Jones either as a lawyer or just as a writer but in both of the cases he has to give
the profs for his words. else i think it is not ethically a good standpoint to just defame a person because
you do not hold a good opinion for his reputation.

Hey James,

You have explained well the phenomenon of defamation and I totally agree with you at this point. If any
columnist or any of the news reporter is defaming a person or has spoken about a person either the
person is any of the political body or a common man, it would become the responsibility of that reporter
or columnist to defend their argument with clear and authentic evidences. in this case the writer had
defamed Jones at a public platform i.e. on the newspaper and I think that was ethically not a good act
when you do not have the evidences and your sayings are based on your personal opinions. Yes, I am
also against the writer here because he had defamed a person with his words. If he does not have the
evidence then he must not have talked about such a person on the public platform. Defaming a person
either he belongs to any of the political parties or any other person just on the basis of the opinions is
not what is taken as the proof. You must have to prove your stance because it is the reputation of a
person which you are putting on stakes.