Essay
Back in 1791 when the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted all people were guaranteed “[t]he right … to be secure in their houses… against unreasonable searches and seizures.” (Carter) It is stated in the Fourth Amendment that a police officer must receive authorization from an independent judge to perform a home search which is basically obtaining a warrant and the purpose of the search should be proven. However the situation is changing nowadays. At this time the police have the right to conduct warrantless home searches if they suspect that evidence may be destroyed inside the house. This issue is very disputable and there are a lot of opinions in this respect.
The USA is believed to be the country that pays great respect to the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The US Constitution is one of the most democratic in the world. So it is not surprising that the decision to abolish the right to be secure in home which was always guaranteed to people has caused a lot of conflicting claims. As Robert H. Jackson, The US Supreme Court Justice, said in 1948 “the Fourth Amendment requirement that the government obtain a warrant to conduct a search is among the “fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law.” (Carter) Does it mean that it all has changed and the police are the law now? It is natural that people do not get elated when their rights are taken away from them. That is why a lot of people are opposed to this decision and consider it to be a violation of their constitutional rights.
However if we have a look at this situation from another point of view it will seem more rational. In many cases it can be vital for police officers to act immediately. It is especially true when there are drugs involved in the case as it is very easy to get rid of the evidence. So basically while a police officer spends some time getting a warrant suspects are given a chance to get away with their crime. Needless to say in such situations it is more effective for the police to be able to act right on the scene without having to waste their time while requesting a permission to perform home search. By implementing the modified rules of home searches the effectiveness of police work is very likely to be improved.
As we can see the whole situation with allowance of warrantless home searches is quite contradictory and double-sided. It is hard to say what is right and what is wrong in this relation. On one hand such a perceptible change in the Fourth Amendment is basically a very sustainable violation of people’s rights. But on the other hand it can be very productive in a lot of cases. Thus in my opinion it is important to draw a line that will not only guarantee the right for a secure home to people and prevent the police from exceeding their commission but also contribute to the simplification of home searches in cases when it is critical to act without delay. However it may be somewhat hard to come to a compromise that will satisfy everyone thus the conflicting discussions in the respect of warrantless home searches are most likely to continue arising.
References
Carter, Tom. 19 May 2011. US Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Warrant-less Searches of Homes. Retrieved on 10 November 2011 from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/spct-m19.shtml
