Introduction
At times, we hear news from media houses that a drug trafficker has been released from jail because the evidence that had been collected against him by law enforcers was considered unconstitutional. A moment of thought may cause us to debate about the relevance and importance of the fourth amendment. These isolated cases should not cloud the importance of protecting our privacy rights and in promoting a free society. This amendment was designed to protect people, guard people’s privacy and protect them from unnecessary searches by government officers. We need to enjoy, appreciate and protect this right at all means. The following is a text from the amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Lectric Law Library, n.d)
The fourth amendment was designed by America’s founding fathers who knew the importance of limiting the government’s interference on citizens in order to create a liberal society. In colonial years, government officials misused their search powers and could conduct searches at any time they wanted and in whichever way they wanted. This taught our founding fathers the importance of limiting the government’s power on people’s privacy. They had seen it with their own eyes and they knew that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Schneier, 2009).
Some people may not see the importance of the fourth amendment. They may feel that they live straight and are therefore unlikely to be victims of unlawful searches. This is not a good kind of thinking because they forget it is not a matter of having been a victim of privacy’s violation but it is a matter of having a law to protect you anytime you need it. As Judge Learned Hand once warned us, it all starts with us. He said: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” (Lectric Law Library, n.d)
Mary Ann and James Stumble family were relaxing at their home when a social security worker knocked at their door demanding to search their house besides interrogating their children in private. Not pleased with the idea of a stranger interrogating their children in private besides interfering with their privacy and realizing that the social security worker did not have a search warrant, they denied him access. As they learnt later, their two year kid had been spotted naked on a driveway on a warm day. They believed that this did not warrant what they saw as government bullying. They refused the search and took up the mater to the court. The case came before the supreme court of North Carolina, which resolved that it was the social worker’s demands that were unconstitutional. This was a great victory for privacy rights; a right that should be guarded by all of us. (Lectric Law Library, n.d)
The fourth amendment has however brought about some problems and controversies. For example, we all feel bad when we see a criminal walk away free because the evidence collected against him is considered unconstitutional.
Many criminals have taken advantage and will likely continue to take advantage of this provision in the constitution to buy time, alter or remove any evidence that can be used against them. These are bottlenecks that are bound to exist considering that in the first place this law protects the privacy rights of every person indiscriminately. (Schneier, 2009).
Criminals and terrorists have a sophisticated crime network that is designed to evade detection at all means. It may prove almost impossible for law enforcers to deal with such individuals if they have to go back and get a search warrant before they can conduct searches on such. Our law enforcers should take advantage of a constitutional provision where they (law enforcers) are allowed to conduct searches in such situations because they have a good reason to believe that unlawful activities are going on. (Schneier, 2009).
One question that we need to ask ourselves is whether this is becoming more of an egocentric matter or a matter of law. Take the example of a pending case in court where a person who was standing outside his truck was approached by a police officer who asked him his name. The man refused to answer and was consequently arrested for interfering with investigations. My opinion is that this is more of a social relations problem than a matter of law. I reason that it was not necessary for the man to refuse replying the police officer especially after he had identified himself as much as it was not necessary to arrest him. Some restraint from both parties could have helped much. (Schneier, 2009).
Conclusion
Civil liberties were put in the constitution to protect ordinary people against the government. The fourth amendment is necessary to protect our privacy rights in our free society. However, we need to remember that a more sophisticated modern society that we live in is presenting new problems in implementing laws. This should never be a reason to compromise laws that guard our rights. Like any other law, controversial issues are bound to arise considering that no law is independent besides technicalities that may arise in implementing it. We need to guard this civil liberty, which enhances our rights and freedoms, a civil liberty that perpetuates our founding fathers’ dream of a free society.
References List
Lectric Law Library. (n.d). The ‘Lectric Law Library’s legal Lexicon on Fourth Amendment.
Schneier, B. (2009).Schneier on Security.