Public Safety vs. Individual Rights
The balance between public safety and individual rights is a delicate one. Assuring public safety as well as privacy and freedom from unnecessary harassment and security procedures is usually not all that hard to pull off but there are situations and instances where it can be very dicey. Easy examples that come to mind are political events, DUI checkpoints and so forth. Some say all the stops should be pulled out in such events and/or that no better options exist. Other people decry and condemn anything that infringes upon the rights or convenience of those that are not doing anything wrong. While not the cleanest solution, the balance that must be struck is somewhere in the middle and it is rare that all sides are placated and left with no complaints.
Analysis
One dimension of the public safety vs. personal rights debate is the question of who has the authority to stop, frisk, search and otherwise infringe on the rights of others to move about and do things as they please. Government officials and policy are generally given much more leeway than private citizens and security personnel as the former typically has arrest and/or prosecutorial powers while the latter hardly ever do. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For example, any citizen can intervene at their discretion when a felony is in progress by either doing what they can to stop the crime in progress or at least report the crime to the proper government authorities...
The NSA had been illegally investigating several journalists and even violating their privacy by monitoring their telephone use through systems and capabilities designed for use against terrorist suspects only. Fourth Amendment constitutional rights prohibit any such use of surveillance without judicial authorization, typically, a search warrant or wire tap warrant issued after a formal presentation of evidence and the establishment of probable cause, as required by the original text of
" The full force and authority of a regular police officer is necessary to make such an intrusion. Yet, such a police officer would not be able to summarily search or seize on the premises of a regular home. The homeless person's effects are; therefore, protected from unlawful search and seizure. Works Cited http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5020427742 Citron, Eric F. "Right and Responsibility in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Problem with Pretext." Yale Law Journal 116.5 (2007):
Fourth Amendment and Court Jurisdiction Based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution citizens have a right to 'be secure in their persons'. Referring to personal rights against 'unreasonable searches and seizures' (Wolfish, 441 U.S. At 595 Stevens, dissenting LectLaw, 2011). The definition implies that people cannot be detained or intruded upon by police or other law enforcement without a reasonable cause. It is a protection to acknowledge a citizen's
" The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provided the same limitations on the individual state's as existed for the federal government in regards to civil liberties and protections, and therefore the same exclusionary rule based on the Fourth Amendment was held to apply to state proceedings. This directly overturned the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado, which stated explicitly that the Fourteenth Amendment did not disallow illegally obtained evidence from being used in
AbstractThis article offers a review of Fourth Amendment interpretive law, with a focus on evolving exemptions to the exclusionary law as well as how social media had impacted interpretations of unreasonable searches and seizures and citizens� privacy rights.Criminal Justice Investigations: The Fourth AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees �the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,� by protecting them �against unreasonable searches
Stop and Frisk In theory, a stop and frisk is "A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect." (Legal Information Institute, N.p.) These detentions can comply with Fourth Amendment standards under very specific circumstances. "The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now