The correct answer is B. False. The key issue is that the legal protection against unreasonable search and seizure generally applies to government action, not purely private conduct. In this question, Charlie is an investigator employed by Victorian Inc., a private company, and he acted at the direction of company management rather than as a government officer. Therefore, the normal constitutional requirement for a search warrant would generally not apply to his workplace search.

This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the item searched was Lorna’s company-issued laptop, which is employer property and usually carries a lower expectation of privacy than a purely personal device. In workplace-fraud matters, private employers are often permitted to examine company systems, devices, and records, particularly when investigating suspected misconduct. The later fact that Charlie turned the evidence over to law enforcement does not automatically transform his original search into a government search requiring a warrant, unless he was acting as an agent of the government when the search occurred.

Accordingly, Charlie did not violate Lorna’s rights merely by failing to obtain a search warrant before searching the employer’s laptop. That is why the statement is false.