What Right To Privacy Is That?
"What Right To Privacy Is That?"
The discretionary authority given to law enforcement officials regarding surveillance have always walked a fine line between effective performance of duty and blatant violation of the right to privacy. The added authority granted under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 has taken any hope of a reasonable right to privacy. In their haste to protect from outside terrorists, government officials forgot to provide the checks and balances necessary to protect our civil liberties.
The use of electronic surveillance equipment has long been a subject of debate. As early as 1928, in Olmstead v. U.S. , American citizens have argued that electronic surveillance is a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. This was the first of many cases filed by outraged American citizens. The result, prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, was the gradual development of legislation and policies which provided guidelines and specifications for the use of electronic surveillance equipment and the information gathered by it. On the surface, this appeared to provide at least reasonable safeguards against the undue infringement of the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
Law enforcement officials were required to obtain a court order by application to a judge or magistrate for the use of electronic surveillance. The required elements of the application were specific in nature. Officials were required to specify the identity and location of the target of the surveillance and the objectives, or precise types of communications, sought. In addition, officials had to provide sufficient recent evidence to show probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance either had recently committed a crime, was currently involved in committing a crime, or was about to commit a crime. Further, officials had to submit a statement of necessity for the electronic surveillance, based on the inadequacy of alternative...
Please login to view the full essay...