Privacy Rights Versus National Security

Privacy Rights5privacy Rights Vis À Vis National Securitytiffany But

PRIVACY RIGHTS 5 PRIVACY RIGHTS VIS-à€-VIS NATIONAL SECURITY Tiffany Butler The American Constitution Tricia D'ambrosia- Woodward July 14, 2014 Introduction The Bill of Rights of the United States (US), composed of the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, provides each American citizen with entitlement to personal freedoms. Each American citizen, to that effect, has particular powers exercisable unto themselves and untouchable by any form of interference coming from the state. Among the rights all American citizens have under the Bill of Rights is the right to privacy - specifically protected by the Fourth Amendment, which condemns unlawful searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment duly protects American citizens from any discretionary move coming from the state that violates their privacy of communications and correspondences by means of any searches and seizures done without a legal warrant justified by probable cause.

Probable cause, however, could come in the form of matters threatening national security, such as terrorism. The need to conduct searches and seizures arises when there is a clear threat to the security of the US and American citizens – terrorism being the most threatening one in recent times due to the ascendancy of major terrorist groups that have constantly threatened and inflicted massive damage on the US. This study seeks to emphasize national security as a justifiable factor limiting the protection provided by the Fourth Amendment on the right to privacy of all American citizens. While the right to privacy is inviolable under the Bill of Rights, the state may use the need to protect national security in legally warranting searches and seizures, in turn justifying compromises to the privacy of communications and correspondences in favor of preserving the safety of all American citizens.

National Security as a Legally Warranted Exception to the Right to Privacy The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to privacy to all American citizens insofar as there is no clear and present danger that would trigger immediate state action. The privacy of communication and correspondences may only face valid compromises backed by legally warranted circumstances – perhaps the most significant being issues on national security such as terrorism. The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, aimed at eliminating terrorism, legally warrants the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment in favor of quelling attacks coming from terrorists.

Among the objectives of the USA PATRIOT Act involve the following: through (1) risk, emergency and disaster management, (2) travel and border security, (3) protection of life and public safety, (4) protection of infrastructures and (5) information security. Thus, bypassing the Fourth Amendment through the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act may emerge as a means to accommodate wider efforts for intelligence gathering for halting impending terrorist attacks immediately, arresting and deporting suspected terrorists and regulating financial movements in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury (Bullock & Haddow, 2006). The Right to Privacy as a Deterrent to Discretionary State Action Despite the legally defensible position of the state on compromising the Fourth Amendment in lieu of implementing the USA PATRIOT Act, such has become a matter of grave contention among groups that uphold the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Those groups are wary of the possibility that the state may abuse their power to access information through the means provided by the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other similar statutes. It is thus possible for the state, with its inherent power to extract information through its vast resources, to act discretionary by using its means to implement the USA PATRIOT Act and other similar statutes for a rather self-serving agenda, such as destabilizing any existing group dissenting against it. Such possibility may enable the state to persecute particular individuals it may so please by using the same resources it uses to defend their actions that circumvent the Fourth Amendment legally.

It is in such a matter where tight enforcement of laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) comes with great importance (Kresse ). Evaluation A closer evaluation of the contrasting sides on the issue of legally bypassing the Fourth Amendment due to national security issues shows that there is ample justification supporting the affirmative side of the argument. National security issues, particularly terrorism, provide enough ground to justify the state to conduct searches and seizures normally disallowed under the Fourth Amendment (Ferguson, 2014). The Fourth Amendment itself states that its applicability may not stand as long as the state must present a legal warrant justifying its move that would otherwise unnecessarily compromise the privacy of communication and correspondences.

The USA PATRIOT Act, which seeks to eliminate terrorism, serves as an example of a law that justifies the state to bypass the Fourth Amendment in favor of an objective that benefits national security (Bullock & Haddow, 2006). Furthermore, existing legal safeguards such as the ECPA help allay fears that the state may discretionarily violate the Fourth Amendment for its own interest against particular individuals through the means it has in its legal warrants such as that provided by the USA PATRIOT Act (Kresse ). Evaluation A closer evaluation of the contrasting sides on the issue of legally bypassing the Fourth Amendment due to national security issues shows that there is ample justification supporting the affirmative side of the argument. National security issues, particularly terrorism, provide enough ground to justify the state to conduct searches and seizures normally disallowed under the Fourth Amendment (Ferguson, 2014). The Fourth Amendment itself states that its applicability may not stand as long as the state must present a legal warrant justifying its move that would otherwise unnecessarily compromise the privacy of communication and correspondences.

The USA PATRIOT Act, which seeks to eliminate terrorism, serves as an example of a law that justifies the state to bypass the Fourth Amendment in favor of an objective that benefits national security (Bullock & Haddow, 2006). Furthermore, existing legal safeguards such as the ECPA help allay fears that the state may discretionarily violate the Fourth Amendment for its own interest against particular individuals through the means it has in its legal warrants such as that provided by the USA PATRIOT Act (Kresse ).

Conclusion Every American citizen has the right against unauthorized searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights via the Fourth Amendment. At the same time, the state may not just allow national security to fall under any form of compromises, even if it involves the right to privacy of every American citizen.

In such a case, national security stays on top of the Fourth Amendment, provided it comes with an ample justification in the form of laws that explain the matter in full detail. Indeed, if a particular right hinders the state to provide protection against a highly compelling issue, then it must give way subject to legally permissible and justifiable contentions contained in legal warrants.

References

• Bullock, J., & Haddow, G. (2006). Introduction to homeland security. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Ferguson, A. G. (2014). Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security in Public. William & Mary Law Review, 55(4).
• Kresse, J. (). Privacy of conversations over cordless and cellular telephones: Federal protection under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. George Mason University Law Review, 9.