Public Safety and Privacy Analysis - Essay Example

Public Safety and Privacy Analysis Introduction Ages and ages of history of the world have witnessed how the public and private divide had been debated attempted to be delineated. The state came into conception to take care of the interest of the people. Through the years, the concept of the public interest came to evolve and be redefined even more to adapt to the needs of the society. Public Safety and Privacy Analysis The public realm is where the political aspects take place and where people can enjoy their freedom whereas the private realm simply pertains to the household and the family (Arendt, 1977). A number of U.S. Supreme Court decision has tackled this issue of public interest vis--vis the privacy concerns of individuals. Back in the 1970's the Supreme Court tackled in the case of Roe v. Wade the issues of pregnancy and even abortion as private matters (Chaiten, 2004). Today, however, the shift is on making the aspects of private realm as pertinent concerns of the state, especially when it comes to the issue of public safety. Summary of People v. Samson In the case of People v. Samson, the court ruled upon the rights of a parolee. The facts of the case focus on the encounter between the parolee and a police officer. It was September 6, 2002 police officer Alex Rohleder, while patrolling, saw and recognized the parolee Donald Curtis Samson whom he heard from his colleagues as having 'a parolee at large warrant.' Rohleder approached and inquired. Samson declared that he was then 'in good standing with his parole agent.' All the same, police officer Rohleder decided to conduct a search and justified the said search by claiming that as a parolee, there is a need to make sure that Samson obeys the laws and rules. It is a mere privilege that Samson has been set out of prison and he will be discharged Samson if he has 'nothing illegal.' There is actually a condition on Samson's parole that grants any officer the right to search at any time whether or not there is a warrant. This is a valid condition and it is implemented to all parolees in the State of California. The police officer found cigarette box and discovered a plastic bag with methamphetamine. Samson was arrested. Samson filed a motion to suppress evidence, but this was denied. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed the validity of the parole search. Analysis There are some situations and events that people undergo at present that are claimed to justify the interference of the state into what used to be purely private matters. This can be attributed to the onset of globalization and the too many changes it has brought to the society. It is a fact that most of the crimes committed today are those that goes beyond what the public can right away see. Some people are molested, harmed and harassed, even if there is no physical contact because of the internet and computer technology. Also, the terrorism that the whole world was able to witness in September 11, 2001 has left many people constantly paranoid of their safety in the public and in their homes. Evidently, these events called for the sudden reshaping of state laws and policies. These also prompted the need to shift paradigms and for the state to pry into the private realm to reveal any bad intent that may cause damage to the public. To many people, the question still remains. Who shall delineate the line on what remains private and what is public when the need arises Who shall say that the government can intervene in most private decisions an individual or household shall make (Chaiten, 2004) How shall every private individual be assured that the rule of law will constantly be implemented and that the inquiry into the public realm is justified This cannot go unresolved as people have witnessed how tendency to abuses and prejudices can harm a small number of people out there. The State is inviolable. Its general principles lie in serving the people that constitute it. Yet, it remains as a mere legal concept. Its instrumentalities and representatives remain to be the people who are capable of biases and errors. What will happen to people who may be abused by such policy What happens to the constitutional right of the people to privacy All of these questions may boil down into one challenged, that is the balancing of the individual rights and privacy of the people with the power of the state. These rights and freedom cannot be undermined because as Hannah Arendt (1977) stated, it is this very freedom enjoyed by the people in the public and private realm that justifies the command and control power given to the governing body. Public safety is of extreme value to the society. This means that the public must be free from any danger or harm, intentional or unintentional, as much as possible. Without the assurance of public safety, no citizen can actually enjoy the freedom that is very much valued by every individual. Thus, this alone justifies the act of the state to limit the freedom of the few people who have displayed their disposition to violate the laws of the state. As state in the case of United States v. Knights (2001), there is a 'threat of recidivism' among the parolees and probationers. Thus society must protect itself from the possible threats by coming up with certain standards. Given this fact, it is only imperative that parolees are kept under close supervision of authorities. The case of People v. Samson that was decided in October 14, 2004 can very well illustrate this need. In this case, if the police officer did not conduct the search, then the crime being committed by Samson then would not have been discovered. At present it is under the United States Supreme Court dockets on appeal. Samson once again would like to insist on his rights as enshrined in the Constitution despite the clear provisions of the parole conditions imposed upon him. Samson posed two arguments before the Court of Appeals of the District of California: first, the search was not reasonable because of the 'individualized suspicion' upon him; and second, the search conducted was 'arbitrary, capricious and harassing.' With regard to the first argument that Samson posed before the Court of Appeals, that in a parole search, there must be a 'reasonable suspicion' grounded upon an actual 'criminal activity.' However, the jurisprudence of the State of California rules otherwise. Previous cases have already established that 'reasonable suspicion' is not a requisite to a search of a parolee. It does not encroach on any privacy matter as the search is already a condition in the parole. As to the second argument of Samson, the court found that the search was not arbitrary, capricious or harassing. The case of People v. Cervantes was cited by the court to define an arbitrary search as one that is not in any way related to the enforcement of a law. The court declared that police officer Rohleder actually made a proper search when he conducted it in line with the parole status of Samson and in determining if the latter is obeying the laws and conditions of parole. There is nothing in the search conducted that would warrant it for being 'arbitrary, capricious and harassing.' The arguments posed by Donald Curtis Samson, as found by the Court of Appeals, have no merit. Most arguments put forth that this condition imposed upon parolees is just and proper. It is only consistent with public policy to maintain the safety of the public. It is claimed that public safety actually requires that primacy should be afforded to the protection of the public and the law enforcement officers to whom parolees mingle with in the real world (Americans for Effective Law Enforcement or AELE, n.d.). The parole system could not ignore the issue of public safety as the parolees have the disposition to commit felonies. There can be no definite assurance that they will not do so in the future. Releasing convicted people into the public field is actually a risk. Thus, allowing searches to be conducted even without warrant may actually balance this risk posed by the parolees. This means there is actually a need to secure further the safety of the public with the presence of the convicted individuals in the community. However, does this means that the constitutionally protected right to privacy should be qualified in the case of the parolees If so, is this supposed to be considered a justified qualification It may very well be said that in the case of the parolees, they have previously been divested of their constitutional rights when they were convicted of a felony. Their right to again be free in the community is just an extension given to them by the current criminal justice system. Thus, there is nothing wrong in the setting and the criminal justice system also has the discretion on the limitations of the rights to be granted on the parolee. Furthermore, the officers who shall implement the search on the parolees are also limited in their exercise of power. It is provided that parolees are not to be harassed and that the officers are not supposed to abuse such power and discretion (AELE, n.d.). Thus, it cannot be claimed that the parolees barely enjoy freedom or that they are unfairly being discriminated. They can freely move within the bounds of the law, but they cannot go beyond their limits to become once again a threat to the society. There are also other laws and decisions that further affirm interventions into the private aspects of some people, particularly the convicted criminals, as outside the protective sphere of the right to privacy. For example, the government is given the power to dispose at its discretion any data obtained from convicted criminals (Wiley, Rein and Fielding, 2003). This is beyond the mere supervision of the considered threats in the society. These policies have already enabled and empowered citizens to also be aware of the parolees and offenders in their community. Evidently, the questions of 'what constitutes the public safety concerns' and 'what remains private' will both reflect the values of a particular community (Chaiten, 2004). It requires that the needs and demands of the society be always taken into consideration with the circumstances of a given situation. The line that divides the spheres of the public and private have become blurred inevitably as most decisions and policies would effect because of the needs of the times. There are still people who fear such events. However, any person out there should have not any reason to fear such policies, if he or she is in the good side. Some may still find this contentious for having gray areas. Yet, delving deeper into the issue would make it clear that this may be the only way to ensure public safety. After all, it is important to keep the rest of the citizens, especially the innocent and vulnerable ones, safe from the offenders that may threaten the life and property of the former (Parker, 2005). Implications on Social Policy This primacy given to the public interest may very well affect further the future policies of the state. In New York, there are laws that particularly focus on the threat of sexual offenders. Convicted sex offenders who might be released after serving their sentences will further be considered to undergo civil commitment, to ensure that these people will not run around the community as threats to other people (Parker, 2005). The Megan's Law is considered to be a good tool also to trace any sex offenders in the community. This shall enable households to know whom they should be cautious about (Parker, 2005). Conclusion The state exists to serve the interests of the community. It is given powers to fulfill its role. There are fears that interference with the private matters of the citizens might be abused. Thus, the state needs to properly calculate its actions to give a good balance between the public and private interest. For in the end, it is the protection of the vulnerable citizens that must be upheld against those who do not have any good intentions. References Arendt, Hannah (1977). The Human Condition. New York: Penguin Books. Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (n.d.). Amicus Curiae Brief. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.aele.org/samson.html Chaiten, Lorie (2004) On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade: a question of moral values. In American Civil Liberties Union Of Illinois Brief, Fall 2004. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.aclu-il.org/news/brief/fall2004.pdf Parker, Chauncey (2005). Testimony of Chauncey G. Parker before the NYC Council, Public Safety Committee. In Criminal Justice. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/pio/2005-1129testimony.htm People v. Samson, Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 9304, 2004 WL 2307111 (2004). Retrived June 14, 2006, from Duke Law database. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001). Wiley Rein & Fielding (2003). Supreme Court raises information issues in upholding Megan's law. In Privacy in Focus. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.wrf.com/publication_newsletters.cfmsp=newsletter&year=2003&ID=10&publication_id=11099&keyword=> Read More