How do we balance the individual’s 4th Amendment rights against the interests of the law enforcement officer to ensure that justice is served? Should the rights of the person being searched always be elevated? Why or why not? It may be difficult and complicated to strike a balance between the objectives of law enforcement officials and individual Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment safeguards people against unjustified searches and seizures, but it also
acknowledges that there may be situations in which such actions are required to uphold the interests of justice. Although they should be elevated, the rights of the individual who is being searched are not unalienable. There is a crucial and continuing debate in the criminal justice system about how to strike a balance between people's Fourth Amendment rights and the interests of law enforcement officials. In the
end, it's important to respect people's rights while also ensuring that justice is done.
Some people believe the exceptions to the warrant requirement emphasize the interests of law enforcement over the interests of the individual. Do you believe this is true? Why or why not? The exclusions to the warrant requirement do not prioritize law enforcement objectives above those of the person. In truth, a lot of the exclusions, like the plain view exception, are made to let police search for certain things without a warrant if they are readily apparent to the naked eye. This is done to safeguard people's privacy. This prevents the authorities from searching for objects using technology, which would further breach the person's privacy. Consequently, I think that the warrant exceptions are created to safeguard the interests of both parties and are not meant to favor one over the other. Reference: Worrall, J. L. (2018). Criminal Procedure (6th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ecpi.vitalsource.com/books/9780134817521Links to an external site.
