Judicial Briefing: Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S.

Judicial Briefing
Institution
Course Number and Name
Instructor’s Name
Date
Student’s Name
Judicial Briefing
Case Brief: Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S.
In 2020, former police Georgia police Sergeant Nathan Van Buren used the computer in his patrol car to access a law enforcement database. His motive was to retrieve information regarding a particular license plate number. He did that in exchange for money, oblivious that his actions were part of an FBI sting operation (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Consequently, Van Buren was charged with a felony for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 1986 (CFAA). The act stipulates that anyone who intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access should be subject to criminal liability. The case was heard by a jury that found Van Buren guilty. The District Court subsequently sentenced him to eighteen months imprisonment. This prompted Van Buren to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. He based his appeal on the argument that the clause “exceeds authorized access" applies only to people who obtain information from a computer they are not authorized to access, not to those who use the information they access improperly. The appeal court upheld the lower court's decision, which constrained Van Buren to move to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the verdict of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case.
My Thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
In my opinion, the Supreme Court’s decision that Van Buren had not violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 1986, though valid, leaves a lot to be desired. Further, it brings to the fore the glaring oversights in some provisions of the law that culpable individuals can capitalize on to eschew punishment. Undeniably, van Buren was guilty of using critical government information to obtain money. However, the act used to try him, inadvertently or otherwise, did not stipulate that using authorized information with the wrong intentions was an offense.
In addition, the case illustrates how a phrase or even a single word can make a lot of difference in a legal case. In this case, the phrase in dispute was "exceeds aut...