Protection of privacy plays an important role in the maintenance of freedom of property, speech, and press supported by the First and Fourth Amendments. Since nowadays personal computers contain large volumes of private information, the unwarranted search and seizure of the technology may violate the basic right for privacy without which the government will have an opportunity to violate all other rights.
In 1949, the judge, Robert Jackson, emphasized the significance of constitutional protection from unreasonable property search and arrests in the case of Brinegar v. the United States. Jackson claimed that uncontrolled arrests and seizures are the effective methods of suppressing the population and terrorizing society (McLean, 1968).
The First and Fourth Amendments forbid the law enforcement agencies to conduct search and arrest citizens without sufficient reason and evidence that the suspected citizen violated the law. To minimize the risks of the deprivation of rights, it was decided not to provide the police authorities with the opportunity to determine a sufficient ground for a search or seizure. Police must announce reasons for the search or arrest to a judge who issues a warrant (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).
However, under certain circumstances, the Fourth Amendment permits carrying out a search or arrests without a warrant. The Amendment protects the rights of the citizens through the limitation of a judge’s power in issuing warrants by demanding a warrant to contain the precise information about the location, persons or things, including computers and other technologies, which are to be seized and searched (Search warrant requirements, n.d.). Thus, the Amendments do not allow law enforcement agencies to conduct searches wherever they deem it necessary.
Three major problems that arise when interpreting and implementing the First and Fourth Amendments are the identification of cases that allow conducting unwarranted search and seizure, the formulation of a rationale for warrant issuing, and the application of the Amendments’ statements. Usually, at the moment of search, a law enforcement agency already has credible information about the intended or committed crime which it uses as the ground for arrest conduction, but there may be situations when it is impossible to apply for a warrant.
For example, an immediate arrest when a person uses technology for the demolition of the national security or harms society by disseminating illegal information. Although such cases of unwarranted computer seizure are rare, in these circumstances, the arrest without a court order may become a necessity. Nevertheless, law enforcement agents should later prove that they had reasonable grounds for the arrest and evidence that they have been unable to apply for a warrant.
Similar to other forms of seizure, the criteria for assessing the scope and reasonableness of computer search or technology seizure is constantly refined by the Supreme Court. For example, in the case of Davis v. Gracey devoted to the distribution of pornographic information, the arrest of computers containing both pornographic and “innocent” materials was justified because the arrested computers served not merely as information containers but as instruments of the crime (Adams & Blinka, 2012, p. 124). At the same time, during the fraud investigation in the case of United States v. Falon, the seizure of the personal computer was held unreasonable as the proof that “individual’s entire life was consumed by fraud” was not provided (Adams & Blinka, 2012, p. 125).
Law enforcement agencies should have sufficient rights to maintain the protection of society from crime. However, power is always associated with the potential to abuse it. Therefore, to control it, the citizens are allowed to file a civil suit when they believe their rights are violated by police officials (Police misconduct and civil rights, n.d.). Therefore, law enforcement agencies need to consider all ethical and legal aspects of professional performance and integrate them into daily practices, including the computer search and seizure activities.
References
Adams, J. A., & Blinka, D. D. (2012). Prosecutor’s manual for arrest, search, and seizure. Charlottesville, VA: LEXIS Law Pub.
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Search warrant.Legal Information Institute. Web.
McLean, D. (1968). What to do if arrested. Ebony, 60c, 174-183.
Police misconduct and civil rights. (n.d.). FindLaw. Web.
Search warrant requirements. (n.d.). FindLaw. Web.