Introduction
On 17 May 2011, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided that warrantless searches for drug related arrests were acceptable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution (Doyle, 2011). This landmark judgment concluded the controversial argument for a search under exigent circumstances (Stamm, 2013). However, this judgment opened a different assortment of problems that subject US citizens to anarchy and undue harassment from the law enforcement community. The judgment’s interpretation by the police is questionable. It now encourages police departments to break into homes unannounced because of probable cause. They also know that evidence from such searches is admissible in court.
Medical Marijuana and Law Enforcement
Police and SWAT teams are routinely breaking down doors and windows of citizens who grow marijuana for medical purposes. The most telling incidents come from Lake County, California. The police in this County systematically raid citizens known for their marijuana prescriptions. They never apply for warrants irrespective of whether or not the circumstance is exigent. The police enter the properties unannounced and destroy property while they search for the marijuana plants. This reckless action leaves innocent citizens without medication and leaves them with extensive property damage. Incidentally, the raids began soon after the verdict in the Kentucky vs King Case in 2011.
Unnecessary killings
Over four hundred innocent people lost their lives in police drug raids in 2015 alone. These people died trying to defend their homes against what they perceived as a home invasion. In reality, they were police drug raids. A majority of these deaths occurred when police knocked down the wrong doors. Despite holding valid no-knock search warrants pertaining to drug raids and arrests, when the police enter the wrong house, the warrants are invalid. However, due to the high levels of tolerance for warrantless searches in US Courts in recent times, the police do not care about the consequences (Stancil, 2012). They seem to be in the news almost every other week for such an embarrassing raid. If the warrantless searches had severe consequences, no police force will repeat errors such as breaking down the door of the wrong house. Although the Kentucky Supreme Court intended for police to have additional advantage during their drug raids, they did not foresee how the verdict will affect innocent citizens who die due to gross negligence on part of the police (Levick, 2012).
Dangers of dictator style persecution
The problem of drug abuse and use in the United States is rampant. Almost seventy percent of all violent crimes involve drugs at some level. Criminals who engage in violent actions pose significant threats to police officers in the line of duty. However, involving SWAT and militarization of police forces for low-level drug raids is overkill. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is the presence of individual rights or safeguards. The removal of these safeguards displaces human rights with anarchism. Legal platforms such as the Courts have to ensure that there is a balance. Eliminating the safeguards will create an unsafe environment for the society. In the 1960s, this nation underwent transformation under the Civil Rights movement. It is not unconceivable to imagine a future where the nation will require transformation under a Fundamental Rights movement.
Conclusion
The job of the police is not restricted to conducting drug raids and gunning down people during such raids. The primary objective of a police officer is to serve and protect the public. This public includes minor drug users and prescription marijuana users. The objectives to prevent crime and investigate criminal activities are important however; not at the cost of the primary objective. A police officer is an authority figure in society who strives to keep the peace. The lack of consideration for a human life is unbecoming of a police officer in a country that constantly explores for humane ways to execute or punish serial killers.
The founding fathers placed the Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution to prevent the discussed excesses from happening. The Courts governing the laws and law enforcement agencies should be mindful of this while pronouncing verdicts. Fourth Amendment rights prevent undue harassment of innocent American people. If a citizen is unable to exercise the safeguards of the Constitutional Amendment within the confines of his or her home, the future of civilian cooperation with law enforcement seems bleak. The acceptance of evidence from warrantless searches on homes is one of the worst predicaments in recent times. It remains unclear on how many more rights will cease to protect US citizens on US soil in the future.
References
Doyle, C. (2011). Warrantless, Police-Triggered Exigent Searches: Kentucky v. King in the Supreme Court. Retrieved from: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41871.pdf
Levick, R. (2012). Knock, Listen, Then Break the Door Down? The police-created exigency doctrine after Kentucky v. King. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 161 (1). Pp. 1-18.
Stamm, C (2013). Defining the Destruction of Evidence Exigency Exception: Why Courts Should Adopt a Strict Probable Cause Standard in the Wake of Kentucky v. King. Mississippi Law Journal. 82 (7). Pp. 184-193.
Stancil, W. (2012). Warrantless Search Cases Are Really All the Same. Minnesota Law Review. 97 (1). Pp. 337-368.
