You are on page 1of 4

Viral Jogani 18 Christie Street Edison, NJ 08820 732.635.


John P. Stevens High School Mr. Boufford AP Government and Politics Title: Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Security

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Uttered by Benjamin Franklin, these words should be the guiding dictum for modern-day America. The founding fathers fought for the individual liberty and regarded it to be the ultimate testament of democracy. As ruled in Olmstead v. United States (1928), any and every intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individualmust be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, placing any kind of monitoring device on personal property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy violates the Fourth Amendment for the citizens right to privacy, guaranteed by said amendment, is more important than the governments interest in preventing crime. In order to correctly claim that the placing of a monitoring device on personal property constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, one must define the term search. A search is any intrusion by the government into something in which one has reasonable expectation of privacy (Electronic Frontier Foundation). In the case of Jones v. United States (2012), Antoine Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his car and so, the hidden GPS device was an intrusion on Joness privacy. Unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, placing a monitoring device on personal property violates the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Courts ruling in Katz v. United States (1967) introduced the idea that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. It is a known fact that crime is unpreventable. As long as there are rules in the world, there will be rule breakers. Crime, one can say, is as central to the human psyche as love or compassion. The governments interest in preventing crime never outweighs a citizens right to privacy. The reason for preventing crime is so that the citizens can live safe lives without any

disturbances. When the invasion of privacy comes into the picture, the government is obstructing that very reason by causing unnecessary fear and worry into its citizens. It is true that preventing crime is a vital function of a country, but it shouldnt be valued more than the privacy of an individual. It is up to us to determine what is more relevant and beneficial to us individually. Privacy is just the first essential liberty to be taken away from citizens. Gradually, other basic freedoms will be stripped, such as the freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Conflicts will surely arise in the future where our countrys ability to maintain equality will be tested, but that does not mean we respond by targeting our citizens. As a nation, we must use the Constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers as tools to maintain and progress our country and our citizens. Geoffrey Fisher, former Archbishop of Canterbury, said, There is a sacred realm of privacy for every man and woman where he makes his choices and decisions a realm of his own essential rights and liberties into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude. Citizens require privacy and criminals require invisibility; these two are disparate in nature and require different thinking. We should not confuse privacy and invisibility for one should be cherished while the other should be exposed. The government should realize that its citizens are more important than its criminals. Invading citizens privacy violates the Fourth Amendment, but more importantly, it violates the ideals and beliefs of the founding fathers who envisioned a country where privacy was at the top with other freedoms. Immigrants who come to this country list privacy as a reason for coming to America. We should embrace and welcome these kinds of people rather than fear our citizens into leaving America because of something they require, privacy.

Works Cited "The Fourth Amendment | EFF Surveillance Self-Defense Project." Surveillance Self-Defense. Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960). Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 944 (1928). United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354, 46 S. Ct. 513, 70 L. Ed. 986 (1926).