Gun Detector Technology in Criminology - Term Paper Example

The Case of Gun Detectors Introduction Technology is a broad and evolving term. Based on its technical side, it can refer to a process or procedure. It is not just limited to inventions. As to the new generation, technology is directly associated with high technologies (high tech) such as computer, cell phone and other gadgets. Same with any other developments in the world today, the advancement of technology has pros (advantages) and cons (disadvantages). The presence of technology has made works easier to do and shortens the time of production. Nevertheless, it has affected people’s culture and tradition. Technology seems to be the bridge for influencing behavior. At worst, criminals have been utilizing its capacity to assist illegal operations. It has made criminals difficult to apprehend. This is the reason why police officers have been diligent in formulating new ways to catch the perpetrators of advanced illegal activities. Stated otherwise, police authorities have also exhausted high technologies to locate and punish criminals. There have been new gadgets especially created to assist the police. One of which is the gun detector technology. Since its introduction in the commercial market, it has been bombarded with several issues. Constitutional questions have been raised by many. The fourth amendment, particularly on search and seizure has been highly criticized. The primary concern is whether or not using gun detectors would be considered a “search” under the constitution; simply stated, whether such method is constitutional or not. Significantly, there has been no exact precedent involving the use of gun detector. Nonetheless, there are principles and tests laid down by courts in few cases which can be made applicable to solve such issue. Gun Detector Technology The declaration of the United States Justice Department in 1995 that it will be giving grants and awards worth 2.15 million dollars for the creation of a highly advanced gun detector has motivated various inventors (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 3). As a basic requirement, the gun detector should allow the police authorities to spot individuals carrying concealed gun in public areas (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 3). It should be a device that can penetrate the clothing and other body accessories that a person wears or brings. Furthermore, it should be one that can detect the presence of a gun by accurately showing its features on the device screen. Millitech, one of the pioneers in this area, has successfully invented a portable gun detector that the police can use from a certain distance (Siegel 221). The device is named Millivision. It is designed in such a way that it only shows the shape and features of a gun and not the anatomical information of an individual (Siegel 221). The gun detector has passive millimeter wave technology which can actually form an image of any objects that can be found underneath one’s clothing, pocket, bag and briefcase. This passive wave version has an approximated 50 feet range whereas the radar type can reach up to 90 feet (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 4). When the wave version works, the electromagnetic radiation of a person’s body is very high than the emission of the objects found. The 10 inches lens attached to the gun detector transforms the “wave images into electrical signals” (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 4). These signals are then processed to develop a video image. Any object found will appear in dark shadow compared with the bright outline of one’s body (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 4). In such case, it will be easy for the user to determine whether one of the images shown is of a gun, contraband or just an innocent object (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 4). For and Against Pro-Gun Detector. Maintenance of peace and security in public areas is a primary concern of the government. This is due to the fact that the government is made by the people and for the people (Jefferson and Lincoln, qtd. in Goebel 41). It is the citizens who elected public officials to govern them. The government will perish when all of its people are dead. In such case, peace and security officers are employed by the government. The police and military are the primary law enforcement officers. It is their responsibility to keep the people away from any harm or danger. Nonetheless, such is not an easy task. Modernization has brought many changes in the society. For the law enforcement officers, it has made the world more complicated; complicated in the sense that criminals now are extremely hard to catch unlike in the past. Law violators have indeed utilized several technologies to advance their aim. As such, the police too have felt the need to exhaust technological advancement to defend the people. Gun detector technology is seen as one of the solutions. This detector is to be used in public areas such as malls, public buildings, private establishments, marketplace, airports, piers, parks, streets and schools. For instance, when a person goes inside a mall, he or she only passes through a metal detector in the entrance area and his or her things are checked in plain view by a guard. This process is not enough to make sure that the person does not have concealed weapons. There are actually guns which cannot be detected by a metal detector. Thus, to be assured that no one goes inside the mall with a concealed weapon, the use of gun detector is highly advised. To prevent a possible damage is better than to do nothing. Anti-Gun Detector. Right to privacy is the main defense raised by the people who are against the use of gun detector technology (Simmons 531). It is their allegation that seeing through one’s clothing violates the Fourth Amendment. According to them, it is not the kind of search that the constitution contemplates. It is their belief that such act is equivalent to a search without consent. A person walking anywhere will not feel secure of his person and things since any law enforcement officers can actually use the gun detector whenever he or she wants to. Some even say that it is not to be considered a search. This is due to the fact that when the technology is employed, there is actually nothing to be searched. When the monitor shows of the gun’s outline, what the officer does is to locate it immediately. The officer has already knowledge of the gun’s location. The essence of probable cause is destroyed. The finding of the gun or any concealed weapon is not a product of a diligent search. In another instance, pointing a gun detector to someone who is not suspicious would sometimes yield evidence. By this, a police officer can just point a gun at the person even though no probable cause really exists. Being lucky perhaps, the technology detects a gun which the police confiscate and later on files a charge against the person. This act is basically disadvantageous to the police. They will learn to be dependent on the gun detector and allege probable cause as a defense. In other words, the use of gun detector promotes laziness on the part of police authorities. It can downgrade the law enforcement profession. The Fourth Amendment The fourth amendment states: “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 no warrants shall issue, 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” (qtd. in Taslitz 6). In light of this provision, an individual and his or her personal belongings shall not be searched by law enforcement officers unless there is a warrant. This warrant should be issued based upon a probable cause. Probable cause in issuing a warrant is to be determined personally by the judge. Nonetheless, there are circumstances wherein a person can be searched and his or her illegal things can be seized without a warrant such as in stop and frisk situations and plain view searches (Watson and McAninch 72). For warrantless searches, the search should also be based on probable cause and not just a minimal degree of suspicion. In the case of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), probable cause is considered to exist when an arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances “that an offense has been committed or is being committed” (Watson and McAninch 63). Relevant Supreme Court Decisions It has been observed that in deciding cases involving technology, court judges always apply previous or old laws (Simmons 63). In effecting such, they find themselves analyzing and relating the use of a new technology to the traditional activities that are expressly included in the statute or precedent (Simmons 63). When talking about gun detectors, the Fourth Amendment is the law in question. When the court will face a case involving the use of gun detector, it can solve it by referring to previous cases tackling about stop and frisk, search and seizure. This is based on the fact that the main function of a gun detector can well be explained by the three topics. Although it is a new technology, its use and purpose can be subjected to the tests and principles laid by the courts in many cases such as Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325 (1985) and many others (Becker 162). Stop and Frisk. In Terry v. Ohio, the court held that a police making an individual stop based on probable cause may perform a protective search if a reasonable suspicion exist that such person is dangerous and armed (qtd. in “The Reporter” 6). Analytically, there are two rules included in this pronouncement. The first is that a police officer can only order stop and frisk if he or she has probable cause to do so. The second is that for a protective search to apply, the police should have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion in this instant have different connotations. The probable cause referred here is the one which is described in Carroll v. United States. Reasonable suspicion on the other hand is defined in Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 330 (1990). It says that, reasonable suspicion can actually be derived from information which is less dependable than that what is needed to prove probable cause (Alabama v. White, qtd. in Bloom and Brodin 66). Millitech, the maker and manufacturer of Millivision has specified that their gun detector shall be used by police officers primarily in stop and frisk situation. When frisking an individual, the police can use the device to detect for any concealed weapon or contraband. Such act can be qualified under the protective search principle. This is presuming that the police has probable cause in frisking the individual and reasonable suspicion that such person conceals an illegal object or contraband. In a sense, the gun detector has two usages: (1) to discover material evidences to be used against the person believed to have committed or has just committed a crime; and (2) to protect the police from any harm in case the individual frisked is armed and dangerous. Relevantly, it is suggested that gun detectors should also be used by guards in private and public establishments. This is to assure that no one armed gets access to such structures. It is actually the duty of guards to inspect first the personal belongings of a person wanting to get inside a building and if necessary perform a full pat down. In their case, probable cause is always presumed to exist. Thus, a person is expected to stop and frisk so that the guard can search for any concealed weapons or contraband. Nonetheless, under the law, they can only perform a plain view search. Thus, in a sense, if they are to use the gun detector, it can be considered a violation of the law. This is due to the fact that being able to see through one’s clothing and things is a diligent search. Only police officers are allowed by law to perform diligent searches in pursuit of a search warrant. Search. Under the case of Katz v. United States, to determine if an act is a search or not, one should consider the following requisites: (1) the person has expected privacy to exist in doing an act; (2) the exercise of the right is readily recognized by the society as reasonable (qtd. in “Danny Lee” 6). If an individual expects privacy in doing something and such exercise is considered by the society as reasonable, then doing something which can obstruct such rightful exercise of privacy violates the Fourth Amendment. This means to say that the individual needs the constitutional protection. In the use of gun detector, it is obvious that a person has an expectation of privacy with regard to the items that he or she wears or attaches underneath his or her clothing (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 5). With regard to the second requisite, even though the device does not harm or threaten the health and safety of individuals, it greatly damages one’s personal privacy and security (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 5). As such, being able to see through one’s clothing and personal belongings is considered as a violation to the right of privacy. This finding remains the same even if the doctrine of special needs is applied. In New Jersey v. T.L.O, the employment of magnetometers to allow teachers to search the purses of students with no warrant or probable cause was allowed by the court to maintain order within the school (qtd. in “The Reporter” 5). In another case, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989), the special government needs principle was invoked by the court in taking away the requisite of level of suspicion in intruding with the work of railroad employees (qtd. in “The Reporter” 5). In those cases, the needs were considered as very important that the court allowed the suspension of the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment (“The Reporter” 5). Verily, the function of gun detectors can be associated with the use of magnetometers in New Jersey v. T.L.O. However, this device does not have a special government need which is beyond the normal enforcement of the law (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 5). The Millivision’s purpose of catching persons who carry concealed weapons is actually a regular function of the police authorities (Desmond, qtd. in “The Reporter” 5). Seizure. Seizure deals with evidences. In every stop and frisk situation, seizure comes at the end. When the acts (stop and frisk; search) exhausted before this stage have been done legally, all the evidences found are considered admissible. As such, there should have been probable cause in frisking the individual and the search should have been based on reasonable suspicion. A contrary act would make the illegal things found and seized as fruits of a poisonous tree (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 127). With regard to gun detector, the stop and frisk stage may be justified but the search part is considered as illegal. As such, any objects found due to a search using the device is inadmissible as evidence and could not be used against a suspect. Conclusion Although the gun detector technology seems to be an effective tool to catch criminals, its use could not be permitted for it will be a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment. This finding is well-supported by many precedents. Therefore, in the case of gun detectors, Supreme Court decisions are sufficiently if not completely equipped to deal with its use. Works Cited Becker, Ronald. Criminal Investigation. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2008. Print. Bloom, Robert, and Mark Brodin. Criminal Procedure: The Constitution and the Police. New York: Aspen Publishers Online, 2006. Print. “Danny Lee Kyllo v. United States.” Supreme Court of the United States. Pdf. Ferdico, John, Henry Fradella, and Christopher Totten. Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional. California: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Goebel, Thomas. A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890-1940. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Print. Siegel, Larry. Introduction to Criminal Justice. Canada: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Simmons, Ric. “Why 2007 Is Not like 1984: A Broader Perspective on Technology's Effect on Privacy and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97.2 (2007): 531. Print. Taslitz, Andrew. Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print. “The Reporter.” Air Force Judge Advocate General School 29.3 (n.d.): 3-7. Print. Watson, Patricia, and William Shepard McAninch. Guide to South Carolina Criminal Law and Procedure. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Print. Read More