Yes, the investigators had enough evidence to request a search warrant. When it comes to obtaining a search warrant, law enforcement agents need enough proof. In our case, there is that enough evidence to request it.

According to the fourth amendment of the American constitution, to obtain a search warrant, the investigator must provide a probable cause that a seizure is justified (Cuddihy, 2009). The reason takes an act of justifying the authorization; in our case MT-2009-12-015-W001, there are enough shreds of evidence to request a warrant. In the first step, when Aaron green purchased the computer, she found the kitty exploitation movies and pictures. After she reported, the computer was recovered as a piece of evidence to the situation as (MT – 2009 – 12 – 015 – EV001). This was the first evidence to take us to the next step. The investigator then moved to the 2^nd part where he identified the owner logged in the computer as Jo. He is believed to be the possible owner to the computer, but there was not enough evidence to prove. However, after some intervention, the owner of the company where jo worked, McGoo agreed to intervene in the situation and help identify the worker, Jo, this is the other evidence in the case. After further investigation, it is noted that the computer was stolen from the company. This is the other evidence that approves the search warrant; there is a need to know more about the computer. After further investigation, it was identified that the USB thumb possibly owned by Jo was used to connect to the computer. This is enough evidence to search for computers at M57 patents.

In the case, if the investigators are allowed to search computers at M57 patents, they would execute the warrant and seize the thumb drive. The multimodal corpus consists of videos and images that need more investigation. In the computer kitty exploitation pictures and videos were found by the investigators, the source of such exploitations needs to be known. In the case, there were also network captures from other devices located in the forensic investigations. Corpus creation needs to be used in the scenario to provide a wide variety of legal activities in the case. For example, how the data was transferred and when the computer was stolen. Failure to provide a search warrant; in this case, further complications may arise. Realistic forensic corpora are needed in the permit to compare approaches and tools in the case. In the lawsuit, various approaches need to be analyzed, for example, was Jo, a real worker in McGoo company? There are multiple assumptions in the case, McGoo could be lying about the information; all these factors need to be investigated. This can only be achieved if the search warrant is granted in the case. In the corpus, there are many questions, like was Jo, the individual who transferred the data? The artifacts in the M57 will help in determining the real answers to the questions. A search warrant will also assist in creating wear patterns and depths from the investigator perspectives. The evidence provided in (MT – 2009 – 12 – 015 – EV001) provides enough evidence to be given a search warrant. From the case, there were various illegal activities carried by the people in the scenario, some kitty exploitation videos and images were transferred, a search warrant is, therefore, needed.

References.

Cuddihy, W. J. (2009). The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, 602-1791 (p. 420). New York: Oxford University Press.