Search and seizure legal procedures draw much controversy because most people have a high level of expectations regarding privacy. This high level of expectations can be traced back to England’s ‘castle doctrine’ wherein the law recognizes the right of a person to defend one’s home or property from unlawful entry (U.S. Government Publishing Office, 1992, p. 1199). Such expectations regarding privacy, however, is not absolute. In fact, the law provides that intrusion on private property can be made lawful under certain circumstances prescribed by the law. There are several provisions under the United States constitution that can be used as a basis for conducting legal searches and seizures. One of which is the 4th amendment. The 4th Amendment recognizes the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” (U.S. Government Publishing Office, 1992, p. 1199). Most people interpret that 4th Amendment as a law that protect their privacy and rightfully so because this provision under the constitution does not only apply for unreasonable search and seizures; the application of this law also extends towards unreasonable or suspicion-less drug tests. Just recently, the United States Supreme Court struck some state laws that require welfare applicants to undergo suspicion-less drug testing as unconstitutional; citing the 4th amendment.
The 4th Amendment or any other laws under the United States constitution, however, do not guarantee absolute privacy. In fact, it does not protect anyone against search and seizures of authorized agents, such as the police, under the pretext that the search and seizure being conducted is reasonable. Controversies, however, arise regarding the meaning of reasonable search and seizures primarily because of the complexities associated with establishing probable cause. Conflicting principles, for instance, arise when establishing probable cause in making legal searches and seizures, primarily because the evidence is most likely obtained illegally by breaching a person’s right to privacy (Peiri, 1981, p. 309). However, the government also requires that evidence, regardless of how it was retrieved, should not be withheld just because there are technicalities involved (Peiri, 1981, p. 309). Moreover, the complexities of the procedures involved in obtaining evidence and conducting legal searches ans seizures could not be interpreted and imposed with a certain level of uniformity and certainty. Even scholars are challenged in interpreting the legalities of establishing probable cause, which makes ordinary law enforcers, such as the police, even more inept in interpreting rules of evidence.
The major argument of those who reject the searches and seizures that does not religiously adhere to the rules regarding evidence can be based on the arbitrary interpretation of evidence. The rationale behind the objection is that, if a certain law could not be standardized so that it can be fairly imposed, it should not be imposed at all. These individuals, for instance, believe that it is a lesser evil to let some criminals go free rather than allow a government or justice system to act tyrannically by imposing arbitrary rules. As stated by one Supreme Court justice, “I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part”(Peiri, 1981, p. 309). The same argument was proposed by concurring Justices in the landmark case, Furman vs. Georgia. Pertaining to the imposition of the death penalty, Justice Douglas emphasized the importance of the systematic imposition of laws. Accordingly, lawmakers are required to write laws that “are evenhanded, nonselective, and nonarbitrary” while judges are expected to “see to it that general laws are not applied sparsely, selectively, and spottily to unpopular groups” (U. S. Supreme Court, 1972).
In applying the same argument regarding searches and seizures, it would appear that the police cannot conduct searches and seizures until the legal framework is perfected. This feat is not only impossible to do, but is also counterproductive to the enforcement of justice, security and peace and order. Such would limit the ability of government security and law enforcement forces to respond dynamically to criminal activities. Take, for example, a scenario wherein an individual is found murdered in his home. If the evidence regarding the murder is not accepted in court because a home is not supposed to be searched, then, despite the fact the privacy of the home has already been infringed, the criminal was also allowed to go free (Peiri, 1981, p. 309). Similarly, the fight against preventing and apprehending terrorist, would also not prosper if the evidence obtained is dismissed because of privacy issues. Apparently, refusing to hear cases involving searches and seizures because the rules of evidence could not be applied properly undermines the government’s effort to fight criminality because it severely impairs the ability of law enforcement to pursue criminals and bring them to justice.
Evidence, therefore, must be weigh by relevance and not by the way in which it was obtained. If there is a reason for a police officer to doubt that a person is engaged in criminal activities, technicalities should not hinder the police officer from doing the necessary measures to gather evidence and present them in court regardless of the surveillance methods involved. The power of discretion, therefore, must be upheld for judges and police officers so that they can act according to their mandate. Providing judges with the discretion on whether to admit evidence, for instance, is consistent with the utilitarian and deontologic ethical perspectives. Under the utilitarian point of view, an act is considered ethical if it is for the good of the majority (Gamlund, 2012). On the other hand, the ethics of deontology suggests that, regardless of the consequences, actions are ethical if it is done out of goodwill (Gamlund, 2012). For the same reason, a compromise could not be avoided. While privacy is important, it should also be balanced with the principles of justice, security and peace and order for the interest of the greater public.
References
Gamlund, E. (2012). Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/MNSES9100/v14/lectures/mnses-ethical-theory-gamlund.pdf
Peiri, G. L. (1981). THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. Ottawa Law Review, 13(2), 309–344.
U. S. Supreme Court. (1972). Furman v. Georgia. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/furman.html
U.S. Government Publishing Office. (1992). Fourth Amendment. Search and Seizure. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-5.pdf
