The Right to Racial Profiling

A couple weeks ago I posted a blog about the Second Amendment and how it’s outdated definition is no longer practical.  I was pleased with the feedback I got and decided to explore other amendments to see if they’re equally problematic.   The Fourth Amendment which 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 probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches of individuals and their property and ensures that the government officials and, in particular, law enforcement officers do not invade an individual’s privacy.  However, the definition of what qualifies as an “unreasonable search” is nonexistent nor does it explain how illegally obtained information or evidence may be used in a criminal trial . Which means that government officials and law enforcement officers are fundamentally responsible for using their own judgment to determine whether a search is necessary.  

When applied responsibly, the Fourth Amendment is exceedingly adequate in preventing drunk driving, illicit drug use, terrorism similar dangerous situations.  For example, consider a situation in which a motor vehicle is stopped by a police officer who witnessed the operator swerving and driving recklessly.  In this instance, the police officer justifiably has a probable cause to believe that the operator is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Conversely, imagine there has been several reports of illicit drug distribution in a local community and a police officer passes a house in the community that is emitting an odor of marijuana.  Therefore, the police officer forcibly breaks down the door to the house and conducts a thorough search of the property owner’s property and belongings.   

While these are two completely different situations, the consequences are largely the same.  As Rick Ungar states in a recent Forbes magazine article entitled, “Supreme Court Erodes 4^th Amendment Protections-Eases Ability for Police to Enter Your Home Without Warrant,” “In a surprising 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that police can knock down the door to your home and enter if they hear noise or are suspicious of any illicit activity that may lead them to believe that evidence is being destroyed”.  The violation of individual’s personal privacy by overzealous law enforcement officers is just one complication of the Fourth Amendment.  Essentially, the Fourth Amendment should be a matter of weighing individual privacy over public security.  Especially in a post 9/11 society where the threat of terrorism is always relevant, a breach of the Fourth Amendment should only manifest in situations where there is an immediate danger to the public.