Reference no: EM133221582

Jacob was the vice president of sales for a software giant located in Canada. He was responsible for the growth of the software service sector of his company. He had a team of specialists assisting him in several assignments and signing deals across the globe.

Rachel was a new recruit to Jacob's specialist team. She handled client relations for the software giant. Rachel accused Jacob of demanding sexual favors in return for her annual performance raise. She claimed that Jacob sent a vulgar e-mail in which he made an indecent proposal for the favor if she agreed to his terms. Rachel lodged a complaint against Jacob at the district police department and served a copy of the complaint to the management of the software giant. If found guilty, Jacob faced the possibility of losing his job and reputation, and could have faced up to 3 years of imprisonment as well as a fine of $15,000.

The company management team hired Ross, a computer forensic investigator, to determine the truth. Ross searched for e-mails on Rachel's system and found incriminating e-mail from Jacob. Jacob hired an attorney to defend him against the complaint Rachel lodged. Ross produced the evidence before the court of law. James, Jacob's attorney, challenged the evidence Ross had collected. James proved that Ross did not follow chain of custody, and in turn, tampered with the evidence. The court rejected Rachel's case and issued a warning to Ross for tampering with the evidence.

Jacob resigned from his post, even though the allegations were proved false, and started his own software service company.

a. What process should Ross have used to prevent the evidence being rejected?

b. Could Jacob have used his "reasonable expectation of privacy" as a defense in this case?