Public Privacy and Safety under US Law - Essay Example

? Public Privacy and Safety under US Law No: Roll No: Public Privacy and Safety under US Law The Supreme Court of United States of America while choosing two cases under the Megan's Law has taken into account the conflict of individual privacy and community. The selected cases dealt with two issues of public notification. The initial one punishes for past conduct to prevent future conduct. Secondly, it assumes that the public notification is constitutional. The defendant has the right of hearing to challenge the notifications (LSU Law Center, 2011). Civil rights and privacy laws are quite different of each other. The importance of which depends upon the timing of the question. It is established that for the protection of citizens, civil rights are set so that the citizens can enjoy their liberty. The agencies that enforce law are demoralized at the same time when they have to adhere to Fourth amendment as its protection permits crimes to persist (Stimson, 2004). Here we may cite the ruling of apex court concerning sex offenders, privacy and public safety. The Supreme Court of United States of America only just made a rule in relation to sex offenders, privacy, and public safety. The legislating body of America and the Supreme Courts are concerned about public safety or the protection of privileges of people individually. According to the Patriot Act defined by the US government, all the groups responsible for putting law into effect can question the Fourth Amendment if it bypasses the rights of citizens. Americans with the support of law enforcement organizations are ensured that they will be facilitated with their due civil rights and security (Stimson, 2004). The other day US Supreme Court made a decision according to which, the condemned sex delinquents are to be exposed on internet by giving their addresses over internet. There is no chance given to the delinquents in terms of their identification as a threatening individual for the society (Stimson, 2004). Litigation over electronic control gadgets are popular amongst the litigants despite the fact that in number of cases tools are used properly. According to Wallentine (2010), courts while deciding such case are making use of the “principles of Graham v. Connor” with regard to the usage of an “electronic control device”. In the case of Bryan v. Macpherson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that “TASER or any other electronic control device” is in effect an in-between quantum of force (Wallentine, 2010). In the case of Bryan who made use of drugs and we can say that he was mentally ill in terms of his health. TASER was used by the law enforcement officer due to which, Bryan fell down and lost his four teeth besides minor injuries. After this incident, the law enforcement officer was sure about the fact that Bryan was distressed mentally and was in urgent need of safety (Wallentine, 2010). When the court examined this case along with other matching cases, it was of the opinion that for analyzing the situation of the convict, the law was not applied rightly for the situation. The law enforcement officer made a mistake by selecting the wrong strategy to deal with the convict. The force option was wrong. There is a further reportage that the officer made use of more than required force in using the TASER against the convict for his own reasons that are still unknown until this juncture. According to the court, usage of TASER for Bryan was not reasonable since Bryan did not pose an immediate threat to the officer / other person. The decision is enforceable on officers within the 9th Circuit. The judges were of the view that officers are responsible to clearly understand established law (Wallentine, 2010). Another two cases that relate to the usage of TASER namely “Brooks v. Seattle” and “Mattos v. Aragano” are in the process to be allocated to judges of 9th Circuit Panels to define the law. However, the constitutional explanation is the prerogative of Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rightly applied the principle of Graham v. Connor’s “objective reasonableness”, which evaluates the decorum of why an officer has opted for a specific force tool (Wallentine, 2010). There cannot be two opinions about search and seizure, which come under the category of civil law and common law. It is a lawful process. According to which, police on suspicion that a crime is committed can search a property in possession of a person and confiscate it to connect as evidence with the crime. In many developed countries, people have the constitutional rights to absolve them from "unreasonable" search and seizure. This has acclaimed the right to privacy. According to this right, implementation of law in order to get search warrant from the competent court of law before any search and seizure is required. However, in case of seizure of evidence during investigation, the evidence may not acceptable to the court of law (Barry & Whitcomb, 2005). The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as given by Stimson (2004) provides that:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (p. 87). Apart from the Fourth Amendment, the court allows a valid search with the support of a warrant from the court. According to the Fourth Amendment, "the people are to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures". The consent must be voluntary. The court will consider the "totality of the circumstances" while allowing searches and seizures. In specific circumstances, common authority to search over the property requires consent. If there is no justified expectation of privacy that is acknowledged by the society such as the garbage left outside the home, the court allows search (Barry & Whitcomb, 2005). Monitoring through videos in schools is limited as compared to employees monitoring in a business establishment. Although there are no specific laws in vogue, that govern video surveillance, however, there are certain rules made by many courts that employees working at a workplace should have proper knowledge about the presence of any mode of electronic surveillance. Employees monitoring through video cameras would not bear any positive outcome but there are several drawbacks such as discouragement, augmented work stress and lesser output. In the mentioned scenario, there is a likelihood that the Fourth Amendment will come to the rescue of “an employee's personal conversations or activities inside or outside the workplace” (Davis, et al., 2003). School management while deploying the monitoring gadgets should concentrate on the forward given issues: a) explicit safety problems and issues b) equipment help address on a day-to-day basis c) equipment will be maintained, repaired and upgraded d) consequences of security technologies (Davis, et al., 2003). Further to that, school management should be involved in organizing an evaluation for cost-benefit in order to evaluate expenditure in a video surveillance system. If management of the school intends to place video surveillance cameras, then there should be a policy to create duly approved by the school management to purchase and install the equipment so that any upcoming confusion should be ended. The Connecticut school was very right in their thinking that mentioned electronic appliances could only be used when all are present. If school administration was not there, it should be turned off to save the cost incurred on it, which has a direct bearing on the students in shape of increased fees. The use of monitoring cameras should be confined on need basis. Using surveillance instruments as fashion would not be advisable (Davis, et al., 2003). In the United States of America, only few states have limited the use of hidden cameras to monitor the public places at large. However, there is a big question mark about using these cameras in private places e.g. washrooms, locker rooms and motel rooms. The right of privacy describe that without the consent of the users of the above-mentioned places, no one cannot do this remote possibility. Monitoring of a person against his / her consent is in violation of the law of the land (Cavnett, 2011). Multinational companies / well repute businesses having large head counts required under federal labor laws to negotiate with the collective bargaining agents prior to installing hidden cameras. In medium and small size companies, employees do not have to meet the mentioned requirement. The employer inserted the provision in the employment letter with the consent of the employees to monitor their healthy activities / unhealthy activities. Violation of mutual agreement amounts to high offence, which may provide an opportunity to the employee to sue his / her employer for breach of trust. Hence, consent of the employee for to keep an eye on those through hidden cameras are must and an essential requirement as per the American Law (Cavnett, 2011). By way of fourth amendment, the police personnel are confined to limited monitoring of people at large. However, video surveillance in public areas is requires permission. Take the example of the security cameras installed at major intersections of the cities are legal. General public have no expectation of privacy when they travel in and around a public streets (Cavnett, 2011). The Fourth Amendment strictly prohibited the police officials for the police to place surveillance camera having sound recording capabilities without a warrant. Therefore, recording device to record conversations at public telephone boots is not permissible / advisable (Cavnett, 2011). References Barry, Donald D. and Whitcomb, Howard R. (2005). The legal foundations of public administration. 3rd Ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Cavnett, Kyle. (2011). Laws on Surveillance Cameras. Retrieved on November 24, 2011 from http://www.ehow.com/about_5480911_laws-surveillance-cameras.html Davis, K., Kelsey J., Langellier, D., Mapes, M. and Rosendahl, J. (2003). Surveillance in Schools: Safety vs. Personal Privacy: Security Cameras. Retrieved on November 24, 2011 from http://students.ed.uiuc.edu/jkelsey/surveillance/cameras.htm LSU Law Center. (2011). Privacy loses to security: The United States Supreme Court rules that states can put sex offenders on the WWW without a hearing. Retrieved on November 24, 2011 from http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pp/smith_v_doe_brief.htm Stimson, Frederic Jesup. (2004). The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States: with an historical study of their principles, a chronological table of English social legislation, and a comparative digest of the constitutions of the forty-six states. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd. Wallentine, Ken. (2010). The Top 10 Supreme Court Rulings of 2010. Retrieved on November 24, 2011 from http://ten8.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-top-10-supreme-court-rulings-of-2010/ Read More