Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression: A Case Study

This analytical essay discusses the importance of privacy rights and the breach of privacy in the Carpenter case. It also highlights the US government's history of safeguarding privacy rights.

Right to Privacy Case study
Analytical Essay

Right to privacy and freedom of expression has been a major issue of revolution globally. There
are many countries and leaders who have driven revolution that has toppled governments for not
emphasising on privacy rights. The US constitution contains no expression of rights of privacy
however, the various bills of rights produced by the supreme court of the country has ratified
privacy rights (Bennett & Rabb, 2017). The fourth Amendment is considered one of the crucial
Bills Of Rights that has emphasised on privacy rights especially on property and search actions
taken the police and other intelligence agencies like FBI. The Fourth Amendment passed in the
year 1791 has since been modified a number of times to include number of key aspects
pertaining privacy rights (Nissenbaum, 2018).
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches of property and seizures and also advises
to have search warrants for this kind of activities having probable cause for the same. In the
modern day environment it is not largely possible to keep the privacy rights of people intact
because of the increasing surveillance by the electronic media over people because there are
number of ways personal data can be collected and becomes tough for the government to oversee
every possible source (Henderson,2017). It is extremely important to understand the seriousness
of the issue presented by the case. Firstly there has been series of robberies and in order to
investigate them the police intervened in the personal life of a suspect. Given the issue it is
important to note that the evidence gathered was not enough to indict the person and hence the
decision to track cell site information was taken which is clearly not right as per the fourth
amendment which means there has been a breach of privacy for Carpenter (Liptak, 2018).

According to the tradition of the US constitution privacy rights have always been given
importance which shows the emphasis given to the present case. It clears the air that the law
clearly wants to stand neutral and to provide justice which reflects from the statement given by
the involved judges in favor of Carpenter that getting cell information without proper probable
cause and search warrant was indeed unconstitutional. With reference to the case Camara v.
Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 528 (1967) it shows that
the US government has a long standing history of safeguarding privacy rights (Marett, 2018). In
this scenario politics plays a major part in maintaining privacy rights as it complements the
decisions made in bill of rights in order to get the favor of people during election. However, it is
an effective decision to make because privacy is indeed the fundamental right of people. Hence,
it could be said that if freedom of privacy has been violated it is important to take strict action
against the individuals or agencies by announcing prison time for people involved as it happens
to a civilian found guilty for a crime. Compensation should be paid based on the seriousness and
impact of the violation on the life of the defendant (Thueson, 2017).

References
Bennett, C. J., & Raab, C. D. (2017). The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in global
perspective. Routledge.
Henderson, S. E. (2017). Carpenter v. United States and the Fourth Amendment: The Best Way
Forward. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 26, 495.
Liptak, A. (2018, June 23). Warrant required for cellphone tracking data. New York Times, p.
A1(L).Retrievedfrom http://link.galegroup.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/
apps/doc/A*******98/ STND?u=oran95108&sid=STND&xid=753160e8
Marett, P. (2018). Information law in practice. Routledge.
Nissenbaum, H. (2018). Respecting context to protect privacy: Why meaning matters. Science
and engineering ethics, 24(3), 831-852.
Thueson, S. D. (2017). Fourth Amendment Search-Fuzz Shades of Gray: The New Bright-Line
Rule in Determining When the Use of Technology Constitutes a Search-Kyllo v. United
States, 121 S. Ct. 2038 (2001). Wyoming Law Review, 2(1), 169-202.