Fourth Amendment

1 Pages 355 Words

As we enter the 21st Century, citizens find the very notion of privacy under almost relentless assault. Random suspicionless taking and testing of body
fluids proliferates on ever more flimsy grounds; motor vehicle departments sell information about those who are forced to give it in order to obtain driver’s licenses; banks use private account information for other purposes and provide it to other related entities; when a consumer visits a website, a spy is placed in his computer; it has become easier to invade homes without knocking and giving notice; and on and on. In this climate, it is easy to develop callouses on our sense of privacy. Perhaps it even seems quaint to worry much about the sanctity of a home where we can speak, listen, read, write and think in privacy. Perhaps it seems even more quaint to worry about “a probationer’s home which, like anyone else’s, is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that searches be reasonable.” (Griffin v. Wisconsin, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 873.) We now reiterate our insistence that even when a probationer has consented to searches of his home as a condition of his probation, those searches. By allowing suspicionless searches, Fourth amendment protection will be diminished not only for parolees, but also for the family and friends with whom the parolee might be living. Those bystanders may find themselves subject to warrantless searches only because they are good enough to shelter the parolee, and they may therefore be less willing to help him in a sadly ironic result in a system designed to encourage reintegration into society. Moreover, the demeaning effect of arbitrary intrusions into the parolee’s privacy will be reflected in the attitudes of his relatives and friends. As a result, the parolee will suffer diminished feelings of self-worth, making his rehabilitation more difficult. In addition, warrantless parole officer searches may reinforce patterns of r...