No one should be searched without a good reason and warrant. People should have the right of privacy- it is important to them. It is ethical for police to have search warrants before searching a person’s personal belongings. There have been recent conflicts on police powers over the pass years. Police are disobeying the fourth amendment by searching illegally. Critics frown upon police, while supporters agree with the police. Being searched without a permit is unconstitutional, and police could take advantage of their power, and abuse it. It makes US citizens feel less secure and safe. Citizens need to be guaranteed rights as long as they behave.
Neighborhoods do not benefit because if the police seize this power of going into a person’s belongings without a permit, then they would use their powers to see what kind of person they are, or finding out on people’s personal business. In general, police will not respect the privacy of the person and his belongings. Therefore, no one should be searched without an extremely good reason and a warrant.
Unreasonable searches are unethical. There are many people involved in this issue. They are the police force, the media, the communities, teens and families, victims and families, and the justice system. Neighbors need to feel safe and controlled, and everybody needs to feel equal. “Liberty is freedom from arbitrary or government” (http://dictionary.com/), and the Fourth amendment assures that we have the freedom of privacy from the United States government. The Bill of Rights is ten rights that could not be taken away from people.
The court Case Board of Education V. Earls (12/26/01) deals with the 4th amendment. Earl’s is a student at a school that requires students to have urine samples to see if they are doing drugs for after school activities and sports. Earls sued the school because he believed that the urine tests violated his 4th amendment, which is the right of privacy. The Supreme Court decided “Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, because the policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Board of Education’s general regulation of extracurricular activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and that the Board’s method of obtaining urine samples and maintaining test results was minimally intrusive on the students’ limited privacy interests.” (www.oyez.org/cases/2000-20009/2001_01_332). A drug test invades U.S citizen’s privacy, and prevents people from going to after school activities. If one of the students at Earl’s school was sick, they would need to take prescription drugs to...