Mercantile Law Investigations - Essay Example

However, the vehicle can be searched upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized as stated by the 4th Amendment. Without this search warrant accompanied by an affidavit, searching Yourprops’ vehicle is impossible.

If evidence of this theft of intellectual property has been found, Makestuff Company may seek to pursue criminal prosecution. Indeed, Mr. Yourprops’ supervisor can direct local police investigators to search his vehicle which is parked in the Company parking lot after obtaining a search warrant first. It is procedural in the company for the employees to undergo routine searches and wherever there is cause for that exercise to take place, proper documentation such as a search warrant should be produced. The law says every person is innocent until found guilty by the court (Vilojein, 1998). In this case, the authorized search of Mr. Yourprops’ car does not mean that he is guilty of any offense but undergoing the normal procedure as required by law.

As stipulated by the 4th Amendment highlighted above, Mr. Yourprops’ supervisor has no right by law to search Yourprops' assigned locker in the Companys on-site gym for digital evidence without his knowledge and consent. A full search can only be conducted when a search warrant has been produced and Mr. Yourprops has been informed about the intended move. When a lawful search warrant is produced, then Mr. Yourprops has to comply to prove his innocence which is procedural.

Again, Mr. Yourprops's supervisor cannot use a master key to search Yourprop's locked desk after he has left the premises for digital evidence. This would amount to a violation of Mr. Yourprops’ rights to privacy as well as the rights that protect him from unwarranted searches. As noted above, a valid search warrant should be produced for Mr. Yourprops’ desk to be searched and he must also have knowledge about the search.

There is a page in the Company’s Employee Handbook that states that anything brought onto the Company’s property, including the employees themselves, is subject to random search for items belonging to the Company. In this case, Mr. Yourprop has a copy of the handbook but never signed the page. He is liable to be searched since he deliberately ignored reading the section or sign it. In this case, it can be noted that ignorance is no defense if the law has been violated (Gibson, 1988). Each employee must ask for any clarification regarding company policies and laws to be on the right side of the law.

The main purpose of this security checkpoint is to search for weapons and other items that are detrimental to the operations of the firm. It may be difficult to direct the security to open Mr. Yourprops's briefcase and seize any potential digital evidence since they are not entitled to do so. This action would be out of their jurisdiction hence they cannot act as they wish without informing Mr. Yourprops about the intended search for digital evidence. Wrongful searches can result in a lawsuit being filed by Mr. Yourprops against the company which may damage its image.