Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


business law case presentation

technology & global cases

Taylor Pratt

on 28 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of business law case presentation

Keisha Rigby & Taylor Pratt Technological & Global
Perspectives The Competing Sides Court Decision The Issue The Competing Sides At first the court decided that Jones was guilty of conspiracy to possess and sell narcotics but Jones appealed this

In 2012 the Supreme Court found Jones not guilty because the government's warrant had expired when it was used and the technology was used illegally

They considered this an illegal search which went against the Fourth Amendment

The Katz Analysis and assisted in the decision for this case as well as
Katz v. United States; Kyllo v. United States; Alderman v. United States argues that the government used technology to monitor his “effect” or vehicle without a legal warrant, therefore making it an illegal search because of the Fourth Amendment

argues that they had suspicion to believe Jones was committing a crime and the use of the technology constitutes a search because of that suspicion On October 13, 2004, the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Department of the Treasury designated IARA as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Islamic American Relief Agency 2004 U.S. Government began investigating nightclub owner Antoine Jones for suspicion of narcotic possession

2005, the government obtained a 10-day warrant to use technology to track Jones’ vehicle with a GPS for suspicious activity however the warrant wasn't used until the 11th day

2007, a grand jury found Jones guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine and he was sentenced to life in prison

Jones fought the warrant stating that it went against the Fourth Amendment and was an illegal search and seizure

This is a technological case because the entire case is centered
around the improper use of technology, which resulted in a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Issue Our Opinion We agree with the Supreme Court

The warrant had expired when it was being used and the government performed an illegal search

The Fourth Amendment is suppose to protect citizens from this Case #1: Technological The case of the United States, Petitioner v. Antoine Jones Case #2: Globalization Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA-USA), Appellant v. Court Decision Our Decision Thanks for Listening! Jones: The U.S. Government: The Government Future of Technological Cases The increase in technology forces courts to rethink what constitutes privacy

Technology is useful in solving cases, but it still needs to be utilized properly and not abused

Privacy standards are constantly changing because of constant increase in technology
Ex. Facebook, Twitter, Smart Phone tracking Future of Globalization Cases OFAC considered IARA-USA to be the United States branch of IARA and included it in the blocking notice Having failed to persuade OFAC to unblock its assets for attorney fees, IARA-USA filed a complaint in district court. It claimed that the blocking is unsupported by law and violates the APA and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act The Government Attorney General
Secretary of the Treasury
unidentified FBI agents
Treasury personnel IARA-USA argues it is a separate entity of the Sudanese IARA
The decision by the OFAC violated its constitutional rights of equal protection, free exercise of religion, and free association
IARA-USA should be permitted to pay attorneys' fees from the blocked funds IARA-USA cannot receive any contribution of funds, goods, or services
The IARA-USA is a branch of the IARA and therefore is subject to the same consequences as the IARA As the district court held, the blocking of IARA-USA's assets was not unlawful. OFAC's determination that IARA-USA functions as a branch of IARA was supported by substantial evidence in the unclassified record, and was proper under the relevant anti-terrorism laws, the APA and the Constitution. The court's decision is just in its analysis and instances of the IARA-USA's ties with the IARA.The separation that the IARA-USA claimed to have had doesn't exist as it continued to do business with the African based company and keep it in it bylaws. This case is the first in this Court challenging an SDGT designation based on a branch relationship with an entity that supports terrorists
Full transcript