Abstract
The dawn of technology led to a down of a whole new level of cybercrimes unknown to most law enforcers. The intangible nature of cybercrimes makes it difficult for officers to garner evidence as most of the data is vulnerable and can get destroyed by the push of a single button. A cybercriminal can operate from anywhere across the globe; thus, they get to enjoy their county's jurisdiction, which bars officers from another nation from arresting them. Nevertheless, the individuals' are easily lured out of hiding since they are often greedy for more and tend to break at the next best offer. This paper revisits the methods used by law enforcers to obtain evidence from such criminals during their arrest. The research shows how the officers get a onetime chance of getting the evidence and most of the time without even a search warrant. This paper seeks to justify the action of obtaining and seizing a cyber-criminal without securing the appropriate permit.
Introduction
Lawmaking and enforcing processes around the world advance and adjust to keep up with the drastic changes taking place in other avenues, for instance, the emergence of tech-related crimes. While the internet converted the world into a global village, it also harbors criminals who are proficient in phishing and hacking, causing damage to various online companies. Confiscating such criminals becomes difficult due to the intangible nature of their crimes. The government devises ways of luring such criminals into the arms of the law in various means, such as job offers and scholarships to renowned institutions across the world. The most retold story of victory against hackers was between the two Russian hackers, Alexey Ivanov and Vasiliy Gorshkov, who were lured into the US by FBI agents. The two got tricked into performing an interview act where the law enforcers got a chance to get their logins into the sites. The two got arrested on the same day, and the evidence obtained in the interview used against them. This paper seeks to evaluate data search and seizure to examine what is acceptable by the law and to determine whether the FBI legally conducted their arrest.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Statement of the problem
Extradition and luring remain the most commonly used method by agents from the United States of America to apprehend international criminals. The suspects range from terrorists planning attacks that could harm American citizens to hackers that jeopardize company security and violate customer information. Among the many arrests made through this method, the most renowned was the arrest of two Russian hackers, Alexey Ivanov and Vasiliy Gorshkov. Research, through their case, shows how the two hackers got lured into the country through a job offer from a company they had contracted during their escapades. The FBI agents posed as the company officials asked the two hackers to demonstrate their skills where the agents gained the hackers' login and passwords enabling them to download more than 2700mb worth of evidence. The agents garnered all the evidence they required from the two hackers without a valid search warrant. According to reports, it was not until three weeks later that the FBI obtained a search warrant. Although the judge went ahead with the case and jailed the criminals based on the evidence presented, the violated international law of search and seizure remains a question of concern in this research. The FBI agents argued that waiting for a search warrant would give the two hackers adequate time to destroy all the data. The agents had a probable cause for the two hackers to be involved in the crime but still acquired evidence against them without a search warrant violating the fourth amendment, which protects suspects from unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcement officers.
Literature Review
During the review of literature, it was evident that international laws recommend the provision of search warrant even when there is doubt of a probable crime. A magistrate must legally sign the document, and it should be specific to the area of search ( Shavers, 2013) . For a warrant to be issued, the officer must have a written statement indicating the sworn statement of the site to be searched and a catlogue the type of assets sought ( Kleiman, 2011) . In essence, the statement must be accompanied by the primary reason for the investigation and any other related information that may help in validating the search ( Brown, 2016) . This process protects the civil rights of the suspect and to grant rational basis as to why personal space needs to be violated. The permit can also sanction the search for a convulsion of computer hardware and digital data ( Welty, 2015) . In contrast, the officers can also copy the information to use as evidence against the suspects. Nevertheless, the use of broad language when acquiring a warrant, for instance, 'all records' may invalidate the warrant ( Shavers, 2013) . The document should be precise enough to gratify the lawful requirements since broad warrants may exclude any evidence found ( Sammons, 2012) . Search permit may be obtained to rummage around explicit types of assets or being, but every state has statutes that define the use of the various types of warrants.
Convectional and contemporary rules of search warrants concur a lot with digital crimes. According to the federal laws of criminal procedures, a search warrant is only valid for ten days after the date of issuance. Unlike physical searches, electronic searches yield higher volumes of records that require longer review processes ( Shavers, 2013) . For instance, in the case of the two Russian hackers, the FBI took about three weeks to find incriminating evidence on the two programmers. It also becomes challenging to determine the extent of the search in such cases ( Shavers, 2013) . The clauses in rule 41-law enforcements' aptitude to keep hold of material outside the scope of the permit- create a rife amid personal space interests and practical necessities ( Bajpai, 2020) . This conflict was evident in a case that involved shooting in a military base ( Sara, 2018) . During the investigation, the government unveiled some Facebook posts that gave them a reason to believe that accessing the shooter's Facebook page would provide his intention for undertaking the crime, and it would unravel any co-conspirators ( Sara, 2018) . Although the judge acknowledged the vitality of law enforcement to search the records profoundly, he also had privacy concerns about people who may have contacted the suspect during the spoeci8fied time frame ( Silver, 2019) . The law enforcements officers had to strengthen their argument before they could acquire a warrant.
Despite the struggle by search and seizure warrants to square and balance welfare in a just approach, magistrates still struggle to get a proper balance and palpable uniformity from the perspective of electronic data ( Sara, 2018) . Currently, the avenue faces a lot of ambiguity and paradox, which undermines both bureaucratic and solitude interests by making it hard to rely on digitally stored information in illicit prosecution by menacing the confidentiality of account holders. The balancing question impacts various cases related to digital information such as phishing, child pornography identity theft, drug trafficking, and wire fraud ( Welty, 2015) . Nonetheless, particular problems arise when it comes to constructing warrants for electronic sources because of the abstract nature of the proof. For instance, the suspect may decide to obliterate the devices rapidly without even departing from the premises. Additionally, people with practical proficiencies such as hackers can create profound ways of destroying all the information in the drives through a simple command. The law enforcers should seek advice from a person with high proficiency on the facts of the particular search.
Nevertheless, it is not necessary to have search warrants in all situations where proof can be acquired. Sometimes the officers often have to apply common sense and construct well thought arguments, which cause them to balance the state needs and the citizen protection ( Kleiman, 2011) . Obtaining a search warrant for every civil and criminal case would be difficult; thus, exclusions in the provision of the order are stated in various statutes addressing unlawful investigation requirements and procedures. There are multiple instances where a warrant is not needed; for example, an officer can frisk a suspect to check for weapons and contrabands ( Shinder & Cross, 2008) . In computer forensics, the permit may be excluded where the evidence is in plain view, for instance, in the case of the two Russian hackers where the FBI tricked the two programmers into showing their proficiency in hacking, giving access to their databases, which bore evidence from other ongoing cases. Evidence gathered in this manner can be used against the suspect in a court proceeding.
Discussions and findings
The research found out that a search warrant is an essential requirement for any law enforcement officer seeking to find evidence in any given location. A valid order has to approve and signed by a neutral judge who satisfies the state's needs while at the same time, protect the privacy rights of the citizens ( Sara, 2018) . The magistrate determines whether the reasons stated in the statement provide profound ground to attack a person's privacy ( Brown, 2016) . Globally, search warrants are used to protect the privacy rights of the citizens by barring the authorities from conducting unreasonable searches. In the United States, the fourth amendment law shelters the citizens against questionable searches and seizures and only permits such when officers provide a probable cause ( Bajpai, 2020) . In the statute's context, a probable cause entails standard evidence that ought to be illustrated, in which a vigilant person will find a reason for doubt ( Clarke & Russo, 2016) . Nevertheless, the search warrant use is limited to the request; for instance, a warrant to search for firearms does not apply when the officer finds other contrabands such as drugs and child pornography ( Brown, 2016) . Still, the items can be confiscated for later review ( Clarke & Russo, 2016) . Additionally, if a warrant allows one to search through the suspect's house, they cannot search through other assets such as a lodge, belonging to he same person ( Sammons, 2012) . The conditions of the warrant ensure that it upholds the integrity of the investigation and protects the rights of the individual. The general search warrant is limited to three days.
Search warrants involving electronically stored information are somewhat complicated as compared to the physical search warrants. In most circumstances, individuals have a reasonable privacy expectation in the contents entailed in their digital devices such as cell phones, computers, and tablets ( Welty, 2015) . The rules of obtaining physical search warrant apply to the electronic search as the officers have to provide a probable cause ( Brown, 2016) . Nevertheless, some exceptional cases may allow the officers of the law to obtain information without a search warrant ( Bajpai, 2020) . For instance, when a traffic officer stops a car to check the license and registration only to find the driver with a device displaying child pornography ( Shavers, 2013) . The search permit is also debarred when the approval is given by the landlord or by the certified person heading the area, for instance, a victim of cybercrime can allow the authorities to check for the glitch in the system ( Sammons, 2012) . Any search conducted without consent from the owner or a valid warrant could make any proof unruffled unacceptable in court; thus, it is crucial to find out who is authorizing the search before per suiting or seizing any property.
Conclusion and Opinion
Lawmakers around the world are continually recreating their laws to protect their citizens from the law enforcers. There are strict guidelines set on how the government agents can or cannot obtain evidence from suspects. Any evidence collected without proper adherence to the set laws gets vulnerably rejected in court. Constitutional protection against6 unreasonable search and seizure applies to all law enforcers. Before an officer can search or seize property, they must acquire a valid search warrant from a magistrate who reads their statement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to search. Alternatively, they could get consent from the owner or the person in charge to pursue the property. The law has instances where a warrant is no longer necessary for a search to be conducted for example if the crime takes place in plain sight, for example, how the FBI tricked the two Russian programmers into demonstrating their phishing and hacking skills allowing them to obtain the data before they got a warrant. Issuing warrants on digital sources tends to be difficult because of the complexity in determining the extent of the data that the authorities can access without invading the privacy of the suspect and others who contact them using the same device.
References
Bajpai, A. (2020). Search & Seizure of digital evidences and modification of digital evidence challenges. National Journal of Cyber Security Law , 2 (2).
Brown, M. P. (2016). Legal. In Digital Forensics (pp. 133-150). Syngress.
Clarke, P. T., & Russo, C. J. (2016). Search and Seizure in the Electronic Era: An International Perspective-Part One. Education & Law Journal , 25 (2), 125.
Kleiman, D. (2011). The official CHFI study guide (exam 312-49): for computer hacking forensic investigator . Elsevier.
Littlejohn Shinder, D., & Cross, M. (2008). Scene of the cybercrime.
Sara J. Dennis (2018). Regulating search warrant execution procedure for stored electronic communications. 86 Fordham L. Rev. 3033.
Sammons, J. (2012). The basics of digital forensics: the primer for getting started in digital forensics . Elsevier.
Shavers, B. (2013). Placing the suspect behind the keyboard: using digital forensics and investigative techniques to identify cybercrime suspects . Newnes.
Silver, L. (2019). The Unclear Picture of Social Media Evidence. Available at SSRN 3487083 .
Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). Digital crime and digital terrorism . Prentice Hall Press.
Welty, J. (2015). Digital Evidence . School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
