Legal Right

A Legal right is an authority that is managed by the American constitution and it serves to shield the resident from obstruction by the government (Stephens and Scheb 14). It is the right of each citizen of America to be free against any ridiculous or irrational examinations and seizures from the police and other administrative establishments without cause. It very well might be contended that the officer Crespo disregarded the sacred right of Watson by looking for his vehicle without his authorization. In any case, the law states plainly that it is the right of an individual to get their belongings against absurd inquiry and seizure, except if upon reasonable justification. All things considered, Watson was driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and his refusal to take a breathalyzer test, only made him seem guilty. According to the law, it is a punishable offense to operate a vehicle on the highway under the influence of alcohol since it may cause harm to other road users (Stephens and Schep 317).
The fourth amendment of the constitution applies in the case of Officer Crespo and Watson as it helps explain the legal process for the search of a person's property. The fourth amendment protects the citizen from unreasonable search and seizure by the government unless there is probable cause, which in this case Watson's DUI is categorically an offense and a possible endangerment to other road users. Officer Watson abides by the law for not forcing Watson to take a breathalyzer test. Operating a vehicle while intoxicated is an unethical use of the road that Watson is guilty of, since he may have impaired judgment and cause harm to himself and other road users. According to Fahlquist, Drunk driving is a punishable offense since it is seen to be morally wrong to endanger the lives of other road users (385).

Torts

The wrongful infringement of a right of any American citizen is considered unethical and a civil wrong. A tort is a wrongful act that is liable of legal action since it causes harm or interferes with a person or their property when committed (Goldberg 602). Giving of false information by Fitch about Watson’s work history results in his loss of a job opportunity and harms Watson since he has also recently been terminated from his earlier job. Fitch commits a tort since her act of giving false information hurts the chances of Watson getting a job at Data Tech. Under the American law, a tort is not considered a crime since it does not meet the specification by the state and federal government as a crime; however, a tort can be taken to a civil court and the defendant charged if the plaintiff wins the case. Watson has the legal right to sue Fitch for her actions in a civilian court to seek compensation for the harm done to him.
Fitch’s actions are unethical since providing false information on a former employee is considered unethical work practice, and eventually results in hurting Watson chances for another job. Being the Human Resource Manager at Watson’s former employer gives Fitch the power to communicate with potential employers, and she wrongfully uses her position to damage Watson’s reputation with Watson’s prospective employer. Committing a tort is unethical in the work environment since it leads to legal suits that are directed to the company as the defendant is considered to be a representative of the company. Despite the truth, being that Watson stole time from the company, Fitch should have explicitly mentioned it without any fabrication and addition of false information. Ethical work practices require that truth be told at all time for the benefit of the employee and the employer in a work environment.
I

ntellectual Property

The law allows for sole ownership of any creation deemed to have been the creation of someone’s mind, under intellectual property rights. Talley is in violation of the intellectual property laws when she uses images from other websites since she copies images without consent from the owners and uses the images for beneficial purposes without appropriate compensation of its owners. According to Moore, intellectual property rights are given to a person or owner of the material for their creations that were the work of their mind, for a specified period (6). These rights include the exclusive ownership and privileges to use and distribute their creation as they desire within the specified time. The purpose of intellectual property rights is to ensure fair competition, stimulate innovation, protect the owner’s monetary gain, and facilitate the creation of new technology. Illegal practices of infringing the intellectual property rights are liable to punishment by civil or criminal laws depending on the intellectual property, the infringement action involved and the jurisdiction.
Banks is correct that without prior permission to use the images, Talley is in violation of the intellectual property laws. The laws require the intended user to seek permission from the intellectual property owner to use their material. It would have been appropriate if Talley requested for permission to use the images and provide the owner's compensation if required since the images were their intellectual property. As [] points out, enforcing intellectual property laws in this day and age is problematic since the internet has provided access to almost every information available. Ethical use of the internet requires that its use does not violate the legal laws that are upheld in the society. Infringing on intellectual property is an offense, and Talley needs to desist from copying of images to Jabil's website. Fair use doctrine in the United States (U.S) permits the limited use of intellectual property that is copyrighted without the consent of the owner (). The narrative that Talley's actions fall under fair use is incorrect since the images are used to advance their website, which will have a financial effect and will not compensate the original owner of the images.

Constitutional Law

The use of a company logo without their authorization is an offense that can be liable to a lawsuit under the copyright laws. Since Watson uses the Jabil logo on his blog, he has violated the copyright laws that demand such use to be authorized by the owner, mainly when directly associating with the owner. The use of logos without the prior consent of the trademark owner is illegal in the U.S (Petty 92). Additionally, Watson uses Jabil's logo to berate their brand on an online platform that is accessible by many people, therefore, associating a negative image with the Jabil organization. The company can complain to the relevant authorities to deter Watson from making remarks that are in bad light of the company. Logos are protected under copyright laws, and there are regulations by the owners on how the logo may be used. Watson is in clear violation of these laws since he does not have the legal permission to use the Jabil logo and is liable for trademark and copyright infringements that are offenses under civil and criminal statutes.
Watson is within his rights to make internet postings concerning his former employer under the freedom of speech and expression that is afforded by the constitution. However, he is in violation of the defamation law since he creates images and makes statements that are targeted towards ruining the reputation of Jabil and some of the company heads. Jabil can take legal action by suing Watson for defamation of the brand and its officials since his efforts are focused towards ruining the reputation of the company's heads and the company. Defamation is considered a tort and can result in civil action under the defamation law should the person that suffers defamation sue the person that makes harmful statements towards them (Stephens and Scheb 157). The images of the CEO in a casket and cartoon of his boss in compromising sexual positions are acts of defamation and Watson can be held liable of violation of the defamation law should the CEO of Jabil sue him.

Work Cited

Fahlquist, Jessica Nihlén. "Saving lives in road traffic—ethical aspects." Journal of Public Health 17.6 (2009): 385.
Goldberg, John CP. "The constitutional status of tort law: Due process and the right to a law for the redress of wrongs." (2011).
Moore, Adam. Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and contemporary issues. Routledge, 2017.
Petty, Ross D. "The codevelopment of trademark law and the concept of brand marketing in the United States before 1946." Journal of Macromarketing 31.1 (2011): 85-99.
Stephens Jr, Otis H., and John M. Scheb. American constitutional law: civil rights and liberties. Vol. 2. Cengage Learning, 2011.