Privacy under the Fourth Amendment

The United States Constitution is the set of laws and rules that make up our government. The fourth amendment within the constitution provides protection of privacy to the citizens of America. The text provides: “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.” Without the fourth amendment there wouldn’t be protection for our personal liberties and privacies from the government.

Creation of the fourth amendment was designed in a way that covers what one might consider a physical search. This physical search specifies when an officer is allowed entry into personal property such as a house or a car. Another physical example includes searching pedestrians. In today’s world technology can break this physical barrier that once existed in a secretive manner. Devices can now scan through pocketbooks and clothing accessing personal records, and even fly onto private property and record video. What I am getting at is that if these devises exist, what makes you think that the government doesn’t own more advanced devices that are practically invisible. Police are now dependent upon what is considered virtual searches. These searches consist of techniques that do not require physical entry into private homes. Instead, police can now access all they need from very far away. While a virtual search was most likely not in mind during the creation of the fourth amendment in 1791, it is still relevant today when thinking about when a warrant is needed to access private property.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about the government trying to break the seal of our personal privacy. Some people believe that the government is watching us through our laptop and phone cameras. People have gone to the extent of putting tape over their cameras to protect their privacy. Others believe that the government is tapping into Internet searches without a warrant. I believe that the fourth amendment is relevant in current times because technology continues to expand, which in return expands the quantity of property that needs protection. Growing personal technological property opens up supposedly private information to unwanted viewers. An example that comes to mind is the Apple vs. FBI incident. Just last year a federal judge requested Apple unlock an iPhone, which belonged to “Syed Farook, who was responsible for the shootings in San Bernardino”. Apple denied this request as it would “require new software that would be a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks”. I ask you, is it unethical to request such a thing from apple even in a murderous case such as this one? If Apple were to accept the request and unlock the iPhone how would this impact civil liberties and the Fourth amendment in the future? So many of us are worried about technology when it comes to what the future holds. Many questions remained unanswered as to when it is right and wrong to invade privacy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html

13 Responses to "Privacy under the Fourth Amendment"

Isabella Brown says:

January 28, 2018 at 8:12 pm

Jacob,

I think you bring up an excellent point that points to a bigger problem that has proved to be problematic for our country: how do the constitutional rights that our founding fathers created apply to our modernized society today? An interesting point you brought up was that the rise of new technology has allowed for new possibilities that our founding fathers could have never imagined. I think that something important to think about is the unalienable rights granted to citizens in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At the most basic level, laws prevent one person from infringing upon someone’s else’s unalienable rights. For example, you cannot kill someone because then you would be taking their life. The government, therefore, is responsible for protecting these rights, so from their point of view, one could see why they believe that the use of these new advanced technologies are beneficial for ensuring society’s safety. On the other hand, they have to ensure that they are not infringing upon people’s rights of privacy and therefore violating the fourth amendment. I believe that the government needs to come together and explicitly state where the line needs to be drawn as far as technological use. I think that a lot of citizens would be a lot less worried about the government infringing upon their privacy if the government publicly stated what its boundaries were. This also would have been especially useful during the Apple vs. FBI case. Another question I think that your post raises is if there is a committee that exists that watches the government’s actions to ensure that they are not misusing technology against citizens. I think that your post brings up an alerting point, and hopefully we see progress with it in our government’s future.

Bella Brown
Chloe Blond says:

January 28, 2018 at 9:51 pm

Jacob, one part of your blog post that I found to be especially interesting was your mentioning of virtual searches. As you may or may not know, every May, a large chunk of the student body goes to Myrtle Beach to celebrate the end of the school year and completion of exams. Usually, the boys and girls that are involved in Greek life rent houses with members of their respective sororities and fraternities for the few days that everyone is down there for. Last year, a handful of boys got evicted from their house for smoking cigarettes. It had been written in their rental contract that smoking was prohibited on the property. The homeowners had flown a drone over the private property and caught the boys smoking cigarettes on the back porch.

Is this allowed? Are the homeowners allowed to fly their drown over the property and spy on renters? I argue no. Just as people’s privacy is protected by the fact that police officers must obtain warrants before entering a home, I think that the homeowners should have had to obtain some sort of warrant before flying their drone over the property. The boys’ privacy was clearly and obviously invaded.

Currently, there are no laws to protect individuals against being spied on by drones. A drone can fly overhead without a person noticing, can look directly into someone’s window, and can film private property from overhead. Senator Ed Markey introduced new legislation to put in place more privacy protection against drones, however, some argue that it may violate the first amendment rights of drone operators who are flying and filming responsibly. Furthermore, others argue that there is little evidence to prove that the existing laws have failed with respect to drones. In this class we have talked a lot about the frameworks used to analyze a situation. In arguing that drone laws could violate the rights of the first amendment, one must consider the two frameworks of this scenario. Are you looking and considering the framework of the person driving the drone and considering whether or not they are acting responsibly? Or are you and should we consider the framework of the reasonable person, who is scared that her privacy is being invaded?

https://www.recode.net/2017/3/15/14934050/federal-privacy-laws-spying-drones-senate-hearing
James Hulbert says:

January 29, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Wow, Jacob, excellent content here. This is such a relevant topic in relation the chapter 2, the constitution. As you may know, Edward Snowden kind of exposed the CIA for doing illegal surveillance on so many people throughout the world. They were so perplexed by his ability to hack the CIA that instead of putting him in prison, they decided to hire him. However, it is perhaps important that the government does monitor certain things. For example, if someone “googles”‘ directions on how to do something dangerous that can harm many people, maybe it should be flagged by government officials. It is searches like that that can perhaps prevent disasters from ever happening. Since the tragedy of 9/11 happened in 2001, we have just become so much more cautious in terms of national security. It is sickening that every day it seems like there are terror attacks, school shootings, and just violence in general. Maybe it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if government could have ways to know about the possibility of these events happening.
Sophia Harrison says:

January 29, 2018 at 1:51 pm

Jacob,
I think this is an extremely important topic to be discussed in this evolving digital age. A case that immediately comes to mind is the Amazon Alexa’s potential recordings of a murder in Arkansa. Amazon did not want to release the recordings because it set up a legal battle pitting investigators’ quest for technology-based evidence against American privacy rights. This case similarly aligns to the FBI vs. Apple incident, however it goes to show that technology continues to play a huge role in our society and that it is no surprise that these types of cases have been brought to court. I agree that the framers of the constitution were unable to foresee the technological advances in the world and therefore could not incorporate them into our rights. Our world, especially our technological world, continues to evolve and contribute a great deal to society. Technology almost acts as a third person party, a witness, and I think that needs to be considered in these sorts of cases. It is a tough debate, because while we may be infringing on one parties liberties by releasing the information, we area also infringing on the victims by not releasing it, and therefore receiving justice. However, another factor to consider is the potential of the information to prove that one party is not guilty. The debate could go either way in that sense.
Elizabeth Curland says:

January 30, 2018 at 4:22 pm

Jacob,
I really enjoyed your post. I think the protection of our fourth amendment has been an issue that’s been overlooked recently in the media. This past year, when Congress voted to extend the authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, this seriously threatened the privacy of American citizens. Though the argument is that further surveillance will better protect American citizens from threats within our country and overseas, it’s still a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. That being said, I do still believe that authorities should have the ability to search items and data of citizens that have been charged with crimes. In our new digital age of text messaging and emails, it’s hard for the Supreme Court to honor the Fourth Amendment when clear physical evidence can be immediately accessible.
Paige Jordan says:

January 30, 2018 at 6:27 pm

Our privacy as US citizens is indeed protected under the fourth amendment, however with modern technology there is a growing concern as to its boundaries. In the past, the amendment referred to merely a physical search, as you had mentioned in your post. With the advancement of the capabilities of both national security as well as the danger it is preventing, interpretations of what is just in regard to the limits of the Constitution have become a greater issue. While the government does indeed have the responsibility to protect its people, there is a line to be drawn on what is deemed protection and what is invasive. In general, my position would be that unless absolutely necessary in a particular instance, the government should not monitor its citizens. For example, if the invasion of one person’s privacy would protect or save the lives of others. Jacob, you mention conspiracy theories that I too am familiar with. If these theories were one day proven true, I would deem it completely unconstitutional. For surveilling millions of US citizens through their personal devices (phones or laptops), is indeed an invasion of privacy and violation of both the fourth amendment and the beliefs that this country is founded on. However, as I had previously mentioned, with the rapid technological capabilities our society is exposed to, the applying the fourth amendment to today’s cases can indeed be subjective.
Alexander Morris says:

January 30, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Jacob,

Excellent points made in your assessment. To believe our government is doing such things to us in secrecy raises many questions and wanting many answers. In the end of you first paragraph I like to point out the statement, “without the fourth amendment there wouldn’t be protection for our personal liberties and privacies from the government.” Our founding fathers did wonders creating a democracy that is sound and loyal to its laws. Recently and in past years, the spying and unlawful searches of pedestrians have raised many heads in whether or not our government is legit. As you mentioned in your text, technological advances have sufficed the governments capabilities to do under the radar spying on its innocent citizens. For example, in a recent movie called “Snowden” they go first hand into the realms of what government officials are capable of doing behind our backs and hacking our computer screens. For this was highly unconstitutional. Moving forward and as technological advances break through everyday, we need to make sure our laws stay in tact and work against any kind of government spying. I also think a change may be ahead of us in this regard. With technological advances and government able to access information very easily. I believe that government will change due process and how it is taken under oath regarding technology information. Overall, very good edit and good points made.
Timothy Miller says:

January 31, 2018 at 1:08 pm

Jacob you raise excellent points regarding our right to privacy as citizens of the United States. Chloe raises a very interesting situation. I think both parties are in the wrong in that case. The kid shouldn’t have been smoking in the house but the homeowner shouldn’t have spied on the kids either. The homeowner does have the right to know if their rules were broken however. A bunch of my friends at school have begun to put little stickers over their cameras on their Macs to prevent the government from seeing them while they get dressed in the morning. I have no idea what type of access the government has through our computer cameras but the fact that people have to put stickers over them worries me. I think it represents more just issues regarding rights to privacy. It represents our fear that the government is lying to us whether we know if they truly are or not.
Santiago Rivas says:

January 31, 2018 at 1:43 pm

Jacob,

Really good blog post, with great examples such as the Apple one. I really liked the mention of the conspiracy theories and other examples of the use of technology for surveillance today. Now the question is how the public is and will react to this violation of privacy by the US government. and how will the government will solve the privacy concerns the citizens might have. Maybe there is a way that the constitution can be amended in order to limit the extent in which the government can use technology as a way of surveillance of the public. However until the accusations are nothing more than conspiracy theories, there will not be any push for the government to stop engaging in these practices.
Santiago Rivas says:

January 31, 2018 at 1:43 pm

Jacob,

Really good blog post, with great examples such as the Apple one. I really liked the mention of the conspiracy theories and other examples of the use of technology for surveillance today. Now the question is how the public is and will react to this violation of privacy by the US government. and how will the government will solve the privacy concerns the citizens might have. Maybe there is a way that the constitution can be amended in order to limit the extent in which the government can use technology as a way of surveillance of the public. However until the accusations are nothing more than conspiracy theories, there will not be any push for the government to stop engaging in these practices.
Hannah Grow says:

January 31, 2018 at 4:53 pm

Jacob,

This is an especially relevant topic of discussion for our generation as more and more of our lives revolve around technology, and companies rely on this information gathered to survive in a competitive market. The 4th Amendment in the context of technology became a topic of debate after Edward Snowden released incriminating evidence that the government had been “spying” on Americans without their knowledge. I think in the case of Edward Snowden, it was absolutely crucial in making American citizens aware that although their homes and physical property are protected under the 4th Amendment, their virtual property is unaccounted for under the constitution. Not only did this reveal an embarrassing and concerning lack of transparency between the government and the people, but also painted the Constitution to be outdated.
However, I do believe that the use of cookies and technology to gather intelligence is absolutely crucial to success in the business world today. Consumers today are placing extraordinary emphasis on the quality of customer service and getting the exact items they when as soon as possible. If a company is unable to tailor their ads and services to be as convenient and relevant as possible for the consumer they will suffer immensely. The government needs to improve transparency with its people over their use of technology while also updating the law to still ensure a successful and thriving economy in this age of technology and information.
Virginia Myers says:

January 31, 2018 at 5:52 pm

Dear Jacob,

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks – they have prompted me to think further about the possibility that we have less freedom than we think. Questions keep coming to my mind about if democracy is working if we are forced to give up some of our privacy. If we are all equal and have the privilege of liberty and equality, does that mean we have to give up our privacy? But, how are we free if we do not have any privacy? Some may believe that our society resembles more of a socialist/communist society since the government is watching us at every moment and tracking our every move. What standard of evaluation are you using for democracy? If the standard of evaluation is if people are free, then yes they are free…but to what degree? We are being watched both online and offline, so how does that give us the freedom to do as we please?

Have you thought about the issue of cyber terrorism? The Russians influenced our election through Facebook ads, using bots to publish negative and fake stories of Hillary Clinton in states where they were close to split between votes, influencing our election. The issue of cyber terrorism is relevant here because it is the concern that modern information and communications technology may be used to harm open societies; it is a growing concern over the next few years that there could be a cyber terrorism war. Since this occurs virtually, maybe there could be a way to avoid this through close examination and online control. Although many believe it is unethical for the government to constantly be watching us virtually and physically with the use of drones, perhaps the 4th Amendment SHOULD protect us online from things like cyber terrorism.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09700161.2014.918435#.U-i6g-OSzS4
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-farr/is-democracy-still-workin_b_10524774.html
Calum Johnson says:

January 31, 2018 at 10:36 pm

Jacob,

The topic on laws surrounding the internet has been raging since its creation and certainly now more than ever with the increase in social media and worldwide participation. For example, the government is in the middle of battling about Net Neutrality. When it comes to private property, our information on the internet is hard to pinpoint and categorize as something that should be protected. However, I certainly believe our search privacy should be. The issue remains is how to modify the fourth amendment to fit the needs of new technology that was not considered when the technology did not exist. However, it is incredibly difficult to modify an amendment because the Constitution is seen as sacred by the American people and government. Although it may seem right to add to it, it may be impractical to do so. I believe a better solution would be to create a new set of laws on privacy when dealing with the internet. Separate from our Constitution. It may link to the ideas of the fourth amendment, but the internet is a different space that may have to be looked at in a new light.

Comments are closed.