It's been a long time since I actually enjoyed a class I was taking in school. That's because when I chose to go back to school to finally finish my undergraduate degree (in 1988), I basically chose courses that were the fastest route to getting that piece of paper—not classes in a field that I had a passion for.
The minute I found something more interesting to do, (which was work at Microsoft), I quit school again. It's too bad that I spent so many years of my prime confused about what I wanted to be when I grew up.
Grad school is a whole lot different. I'm taking courses that I truly enjoy. And the teachers are people with real day jobs in the field we are studying; they aren't teaching just by a book. I am so glad I finally finished my Bachelor's degree so that I can pursue my dream and get a career that is truly satisfying. (I might be less happy about things if I don't find a day job soon — it'll be hard to study when I'm living on the street.)
Studying computer forensics is a whole new ball game for me. What kind of class lets you watch true crime TV shows for homework? Introduction to Criminal Investigations! That's what kind. What kind of class has you writing a case brief every week? Introduction to Criminal Law —which is more about criminal procedure than law.
I love the stuff I'm learning in both my classes, but Investigations is the more fun of the two courses. For the past few weeks my classmates and I have been looking forward to February 2nd. That's "Crime Scene Night." The stuff we do the rest of the semester will be based on our investigation of a crime scene staged by a veteran DC police criminal investigator.
For example, we have to present our investigative findings (as members of two teams) the week after crime scene night. Then, later in the semester, we each have to write a search warrant. A viable search warrant. It's not as easy as it sounds.
From what I'm learning in my Crim Law class—which is primarily a lot of reading—a search warrant has to meet several criteria if it's going to hold up in court. The most important criteria is probable cause. You can't get a warrant without it. We all know that just from watching TV. Establishing probable cause falls under its own set of rules, however, especially if the information came from an informant.
If a warrant doesn't hold up, any evidence found under that warrant can be thrown out on the Exclusion Rule. In addition, evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence can be thrown out under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The key lies in understanding the Fourth Amendment and appropriately interpreting case law that is based on it.
And does an officer always need a search warrant to perform a search? There are exceptions, such as a "Terry stop," otherwise known as a "stop-and-frisk." Determining when you do and don't need a warrant is a decision that frequently has to be made under life-or-death circumstances. Police have to understand individual rights and the laws that protect those rights before they make any move to search or seize a person, place or thing.
It's one thing to know what the Fourth Amendment is, but it's another thing entirely to know how to apply it to real life criminal procedure. Like they say, every rule has an exception. Laws vary by jurisdiction and get modified by the Supreme Court over time. I understand now that police officers have to be really good at thinking on their feet. This stuff is complicated and rarely is as straight forward as they make it look on Law & Order.
If I can recite the Fourth Amendment on the final exam in my Crim Law class, I get extra credit. Woo-hoo! Because my memory is so poor, I've started the memorization process a few months in advance of the exam. It's 54 words, and by now I can remember the first 33 of them. Here it is.
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.
Fascinating stuff!
It's one thing to know what the Fourth Amendment is, but it's another thing entirely to know how to apply it to real life criminal procedure. Like they say, every rule has an exception. Laws vary by jurisdiction and get modified by the Supreme Court over time. I understand now that police officers have to be really good at thinking on their feet. This stuff is complicated and rarely is as straight forward as they make it look on Law & Order.
If I can recite the Fourth Amendment on the final exam in my Crim Law class, I get extra credit. Woo-hoo! Because my memory is so poor, I've started the memorization process a few months in advance of the exam. It's 54 words, and by now I can remember the first 33 of them. Here it is.
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.
Fascinating stuff!