+1 (909) 375-5650
4982 Parkway Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017
support@smartwritingservice.com
800-888

On a sunny Saturday morning in January, Rachel was driving to the beach when her car broke down on a busy road. As there was a ‘No Stopping’ sign, Rachel tried to push the car onto the grassy area next to the road, but it was too heavy. Rachel decided to leave the car where it was until the roadside assistance company arrived. The road was wide enough that other cars could get past Rachel’s car. Ben was on his way to a party and decided to get into the party mood by playing loud music and singing while driving. As Ben’s attention was not fully on the road, he failed to see Rachel’s stationary car until it was too late. Ben swerved to avoid Rachel’s car but still hit it, injuring Rachel who was sitting on the bonnet of the car. Ben’s car then collided with Olivia’s car, which was travelling in the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, Olivia is seriously injured. Miraculously, Ben has no injuries

In this case, you have been notified by Mr. Hirum Andfirum, Human Resources Director for the Makestuff Company, that the company has just terminated Mr. Got Yourprop, a former engineer in the company’s New Products Division, for cause. Mr. Andfirum tells you that at Mr. Yourprop’s exit interview earlier that day, the terminated employee made several statements to the effect of “it is okay because I have a new job already and they were VERY happy to have me come from Makestuff, with ALL I have to offer.” Mr. Yourprop’s statements made Mr. Andfirum fear he might be taking Makestuff’s intellectual property with him to his new employer (undoubtedly a Makestuff competitor). In particular, Mr. Andfirum is worried about the loss of the source code for “Product X,” which the company is counting on to earn millions in revenue over the next three years. Mr. Andfirum provides you a copy of the source code to use in your investigation. Lastly, Mr. Andfirum tells you to remember that the Company wants to retain the option to refer the investigation to law enforcement in the future, so anything you do should be with thought about later potential admissibility in court

After seeing you search Mr. Yourprop’s work area and take several pieces of evidence, Ms. Maria Friend, who works in the office across the hall, comes forward with an odd story. Ms. Friend states that she is Mr. Yourprop’s fiancé, but lately things in their relationship had begun to sour. She produces a thumb drive she says Mr. Yourprop gave her earlier that day. She tells you Mr. Yourprop told her to “keep it safe” and asked her to bring it home with her at the end of the day. Ms. Friend tells you she really likes her job and has no interest in being wrapped up in whatever Mr. Yourprop has done to invite negative attention

In this case, you have been notified by Mr. Hirum Andfirum, Human Resources Director for the Makestuff Company, that the company has just terminated Mr. Got Yourprop, a former engineer in the company’s New Products Division, for cause. Mr. Andfirum tells you that at Mr. Yourprop’s exit interview earlier that day, the terminated employee made several statements to the effect of “it is okay because I have a new job already and they were VERY happy to have me come from Makestuff, with ALL I have to offer.” Mr. Yourprop’s statements made Mr. Andfirum fear he might be taking Makestuff’s intellectual property with him to his new employer (undoubtedly a Makestuff competitor). In particular, Mr. Andfirum is worried about the loss of the source code for “Product X,” which the company is counting on to earn millions in revenue over the next three years. Mr. Andfirum provides you a copy of the source code to use in your investigation. Lastly, Mr. Andfirum tells you to remember that the Company wants to retain the option to refer the investigation to law enforcement in the future, so anything you do should be with thought about later potential admissibility in court. The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “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 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.” While the 4th Amendment is most commonly interpreted to only affect/restrict governmental power (e.g., law enforcement), the fact that a formal criminal investigation is a possibility (and the Company has no desire to be named in a civil lawsuit) means you must consider its effect your actions