Peter Cruman Case Study

When an unlawful search and seizure was conducted against Cruman, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Peter Cruman, a high school student, was accused of being involved in a Facebook group whose goal was to traffic Marijuana on school grounds. An anonymous tip was given to the principal and because of the information received, Cruman was questioned in the principal's office for 2 1/2 hours, until he agreed to sign into his Facebook account on the Principals computer. Once Cruman allowed the principal access to his Facebook account, Crumans Fourth Amendment rights, which protect people from unlawful search and seizures, were not violated because the search was not unreasonable. A unreasonable search is defined as evidence found in a search
In the case of Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. Moreno decided to post her ideas about her local community on social media. Due to Hanford Sentinel reposting her post, Moreno and her family received threats. After Moreno sued Hanford claiming Hanford violated her right to privacy, the court decided you can only prevail of an invasion of privacy if the person demonstrated an expectation of privacy. This case supports the case of P.C. v. State of Olympus because Cruman did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy. Crumans Facebook account consisted of 30 members and since Cruman logged into his Facebook account voluntarily, it shows how Cruman did not have an expectation of privacy. Another case that connects to the case of P.C. v. State of Olympus is the case New Jersey v. T.L.O, where the vice-principal searched a student's bag due to suspicion and found she was dealing marijuana. From this, the court decided that searches are valid if done relating to the reason for the search and not overly intrusive. This relates to the case of P.C. v. State of Olympus because Cruman willingly came to the principal's office and stayed for the 2 1/2 hours. Also, Cruman was not forced to log into his Facebook account and instead logged on voluntarily. He also admitted to his drug activity without force from the principal. Since Cruman voluntarily cooperated with the principal, the search conducted was not intrusive and is therefore valid in court since it did not violate Crumans Fourth Amendment rights. All in all, Crumans search was legal due to the fact that Crumans Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because Cruman voluntarily cooperated with the principal throughout the