Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

ACFE Exam CFE-Law Topic 1 Question 14 Discussion

Actual exam question for ACFE's CFE-Law exam
Question #: 14
Topic #: 1
[All CFE-Law Questions]

Smith, a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE). works for the ABC Company, a private entity that operates w\ a jurisdiction with civil laws for defamation, invasion of privacy. and conflict of interest Smith seizes and searches the personal smartphone of Green an employee of ABC even though Green was not suspected of any wrongdong Assuming that Green had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smartphone and Smith conducted the search without a legitmate interest or authority, under which of the following claims would Green MOST LIKELY be able to recover damages against Smith?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Willard at Feb 03, 2023, 11:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CFE-Law Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Tammara
2 months ago
I'm going with B. Smith should have known better than to go rummaging through an employee's personal device without a valid reason.
upvoted 0 times
Latricia
5 days ago
User3: Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries by searching Green's personal smartphone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nydia
6 days ago
User2: Agreed, that was a clear violation of privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisandra
14 days ago
User1: B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Aileen
2 months ago
Haha, I bet Green wishes he had a 'Phone Fortress' app to keep people like Smith out of his business!
upvoted 0 times
Laquita
24 days ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamesha
1 months ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorenza
1 months ago
A) Slander
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Louann
2 months ago
I think C, Public disclosure of private facts, is also a strong option. Smith's actions could be seen as a breach of Green's privacy, even if he didn't actually disclose anything.
upvoted 0 times
Vanesa
8 hours ago
Definitely, invading someone's privacy like that is a serious issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beatriz
2 days ago
I agree, C seems like the most relevant claim in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edelmira
3 days ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
upvoted 0 times
...
Shala
8 days ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Evan
16 days ago
A) Slander
upvoted 0 times
...
Brinda
23 days ago
D) Conflict of interest
upvoted 0 times
...
Raylene
30 days ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
upvoted 0 times
...
Carey
1 months ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Laine
2 months ago
A) Slander
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Naomi
2 months ago
Definitely B, Intrusion into Green's private matters. Smith had no legitimate reason to search Green's personal smartphone without consent or a warrant.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlena
2 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think C) Public disclosure of private facts could also be a possible claim for damages.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kerry
3 months ago
I agree with Na. Smith had no legitimate reason to search Green's personal smartphone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Na
3 months ago
I think the answer is B) Intrusion into Green's private matters.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel