Which of the following methods will not ensure the admissibility of electronic evidence (in terms of collection)?:

Question

Options

• AExpressed consent
• BCourt order
• CImplied consent
• DCorporate policy of "Expectation of Privacy" that denotes all electronic information is corporately

• A
  16% (6)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  76% (28)
• D
  5% (2)

Explanation

Implied consent (C) is the correct answer because it is inferred from circumstance or behavior rather than explicitly stated, making it legally ambiguous and insufficient to guarantee admissibility - a court can challenge whether consent was truly given, leaving collected evidence vulnerable to suppression.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (Expressed consent) is explicit and documented agreement from the data owner, which courts recognize as a clear legal basis for collection.
• B (Court order) is a legally binding judicial instrument that compels disclosure, making any evidence gathered under it inherently admissible.
• D (Corporate "Expectation of Privacy" policy) puts employees on written notice that corporate data is company property, establishing a lawful basis for monitoring and collection - no ambiguity exists.

Memory tip: Think of the spectrum - expressed consent is a signed contract, a court order is a judge's stamp, a corporate policy is a written rulebook; all three leave a clear paper trail. Implied consent is a handshake you think happened - courts don't like guessing games, so it's the weak link that won't hold up.

No community discussion yet for this question.