Week 2 Discussion 1 & 2 BUS 624/625

BUS 624 Week 2 Response for Discussion 1 & 2

Week 2 Discussion 1 Response

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your peers’ posts (as well as any comments made by your instructor) in a substantive manner and provide information or concepts that they may not have considered. Each response should have a minimum of 100 words. Support your position by using information from the week’s readings. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until Day 7 and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post.

Below there are two of my classmate’s discussion that needs I need to response to their names are David Geusen and Mark Zuniga

Mark Zuniga

What was the Court of Appeal’s decision?

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny suppression of evidence and affirmed the sentence and closing statements.

Was the search and seizure a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?

The search and seizure was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Based on the case, Agent Park’s went on a road that anybody from the public could have been on without seeing any signs of trespassing or private road (US v. Hall, 1995). Bet-Air did not take protection measures to keep the dumpster private. Also, the dumpster was picked up by a third party and giving property to someone else, reduces the privacy of the garbage.  

Would the result have been different if the dumpster was on private property rather than on commercial property?

The result would not be the same if this was private property. In California v. Greenwood, 1988, shows that once the transfer of garbage happens, the privacy is reduced. However, if the dumpster or garbage can was searched, this would be against the 4th amendment. The garbage can on a private residence that is located in the fenced backyard could not be searched as this would be trespassing to obtain the information. However, according to California v. Greenwood, 1988, once the trash is picked up by the public service it could be reviewed and searched.

Suppose you were an executive at Bet-Air. What recommendations would you make to help Bet-Air assert an expectation of privacy in the dumpster?

I would immediately place fences surrounding the perimeter which would exclude the public from access. I would also place signs stating private property or trespassing past this point to again show that the public is excluded from this property. The company could also change their procedures on getting rid of trash such as keeping trash inside the property until the contractor picks up the garbage.

David Geusen

In the United States v. Hall case, the Court of Appeals decision was that the district courts denial of the Park's suppression motion was accurate. Hall stated that the warrant-less search and seizure of the shredded documents violated the fourth amendment and the judge magistrate should not have suppressed his motion. His main contention was he thought that shredding the documents, placing them in a green bag, and throwing them in a dumpster showed reasonable expectation of privacy. He also argued that the dumpster and evidence was within "commercial curtilage". In the end, it was found that the search and seizure of the shredded documents was not a violation of the 4th amendment because a business has a diminished expectation of privacy when putting garbage out in shared dumpsters that is shared with other businesses. These dumpsters are also widely known to be a source of scavenging for homeless and animals, therefore, his expectation of privacy was pretty much unreasonable.

Would the result have been different if the dumpster was on private property rather than on commercial property?

I believe that the results could have been different. In Donovan v. Dewey it was held that private property and commercial property expectations of privacy are different because of fundamental differences overall. Because of this case, i believe that a company needs to have has a heightened understanding of what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In United States v. Hall, there was not enough action shown stop public access.

Suppose you were an executive at Bet Air. What recommendations would you make to help Bet Air assert an expectation of privacy in the dumpster?

Since the company needs to take affirmative steps to limit public access, I would make sure there are signs prohibiting dumpster scavenging, perimeter fences that illustrate trespassing if disregarded, and roads that are clearly marked private.

BUS 624 Week 2 Discussion 2 Response

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your peers’ posts (as well as any comments made by your instructor) in a substantive manner and provide information or concepts that they may not have considered. Each response should have a minimum of 100 words. Support your position by using information from the week’s readings. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until Day 7 and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post.

Below there are two of my classmate’s discussion that needs I need to response to their names are Lisa James and Mark Zuniga

Lisa James

Before comprising a defense strategy for the case, the newspaper and Town Crier columnist need to fully understand what they will be defending against. Jones’ case accuses them of defamation based on statements made about his character and impact on the city in their column. The text states that “A defamatory statement is one that is likely to harm the reputation of another by injuring his community’s estimation of him or by deterring others from associating or dealing with him” (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, & Perry, 2019, pg. 211). However, because the accusations appeared in written form, they would be considered to be libel, which has traditionally been considered more impactful for the individual because of the permanent nature of the written word. This means that in many instances libel can be very hard to defend against (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, & Perry, 2019).

Because of the permanent nature of the written word, the defense’s best strategy will be to prove that the statements made were based on opinion and that the statements are privileged, as they serve a social interest in recognizing corruption in local government. Because of his public official status, Jones must prove that the statements made by the paper were made with actual malice, meaning a complete disregard for the truth. The newspaper could argue that their comments were not made to intentionally damage or spin falsities about the character of Jones, but simply to bring something to the attention to the citizens of Smithville and to encourage them to think about how Jones is impacting their city.

In this instance, though the statements were made in the written word and could be viewed as dangerous and permanent, I do not think Jones will be able to win his case. I think that he will have a hard time proving that the statements were made recklessly and with disregard for the truth. Additionally, the language utilized in the Town Crier column could be seen as hyperbolic due to its utilization of phrases such as “political hatchet man” and “behind the throne of local government” (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, & Perry, 2019). This language is exaggeratory in nature and in my opinion, is used to express the columnist’s personal displeasure with Jones and not to state an absolute fact.

Resources

Mark Zuniga

What arguments should the defendants make in an effort to avoid defamation liability?

The defendant should argue that in a town which is known to have a substantially smaller population compared to cities. An attorney who is involved in political aspects in a town could be known as a public figure. Public figures are held to a higher standard of defamation such as requiring proof of malice (Langvardt et al., 2019). The newspaper also needs to have a source with credibility to point reason for writing the piece that is made. A source providing some truth behind the message helps build a case for believing what is being said and protecting the intent of the public. “Leading Smithville to destruction” specifically is a strong statement which benefits greatly by the credible source.

Should Jones win his case?

Jones should win this case if Jones can prove he is not a public figure. A public figure has stricter qualifications for defamation including requiring proof of malice. By convincing the judge or jury that Jones is not a public figure and without any truth or credible sources for the comments in the newspaper, the case for Jones is a win. Jones is discredited in a town where reputation is greatly valued due to the size of the community. If Jones is not able to convince the judge of not being a public figure or there is truth to the comments, then Jones should lose this case.