ACFE Exam CFE-Law Topic 1 Question 14 Discussion

Actual exam question for ACFE's CFE-Law exam

Question #: 14
Topic #: 1

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?

ASlander

BIntrusion into Green's private matters

CPublic disclosure of private facts

DConflict of interest

Show Suggested 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

1 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

Nydia

1 days ago

User2: Agreed, that was a clear violation of privacy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lisandra

9 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

19 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

Shala

3 days ago

B) Intrusion into Green's private matters

upvoted 0 times

...

Evan

11 days ago

A) Slander

upvoted 0 times

...

Brinda

18 days ago

D) Conflict of interest

upvoted 0 times

...

Raylene

25 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

...