Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Today the surveillance techniques are widely used by the police for various purposes, such as to protect citizens and detect illegal activities. Even though some might consider the techniques useful and harmless, others might question the constitutionality of such an approach to controlling crime level by the Government. The primary reason for that is that surveillance might be a threat to the privacy of the citizens and thus violate the right to privacy. The work will emphasize closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance and provide an analysis of the constitutionality of the technique. Video surveillance can cause pressure on residents, as well as violate personal space. First, the work will evaluate the efficiency of closed-circuit television surveillance. Next, it will assess the constitutionality of the technique from the perspective of three doctrines, which are the Fourth Amendment prohibition, the First Amendment, and the constitutional right of privacy. Despite the possible effectiveness of the closed-circuit television surveillance in preventing crime and controlling the crime level, it might threaten citizens right to privacy and pose several questions regarding the constitutional implication of the technique.
CCTV surveillance is used in the private sector, in commercial buildings like hospitals, banks, and shopping centers. The CCTV screens are monitored by the police officers, and they detect any suspicious actions on the screen. The camera could be regulated and adjusted by the officer. The cameras are also lightly amplifiable, so they are able to detect criminal activity both during the day and the nighttime. The main purpose of adjusting cameras is to prevent and reduce crime cases. A study conducted by Welsh et al. (2019) demonstrates that the noticeable reduction in crime is associated with the intervention of CCTV. However, crime reduction is affected by various factors, such as the type of crime and the geographical setting (Piza, 2019). According to Jang et al. (2018), CCTV surveillance had affected the reduction in property crime, but it did not affect other types of crime estimates. Hence, the efficiency of CCTV surveillance depends on the different factors that might influence the crime; nevertheless, this surveillance technique contributes to crime reduction.
In order to assess the constitutionality of CCTV, three primary constitutional doctrines will be mentioned: the Fourth Amendment prohibition, the constitutional right for privacy, and the First Amendment. By the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court had not defined what aspects make the expectation of privacy reasons. (Tokson, 2020). For a long time, courts have concluded that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment by the CCTV surveillance and juxtaposed it to the basic surveillance by a police officer. (Gee, 2020). In the Katz V. United States case, the Supreme Court established a legal rule regarding what accounts for a search under the Fourth Amendment. The doctrine was superseded by this rule, which switched the attention from the means of search to the standpoint of the person being searched.
A conversation is protected from arbitrary search and seizure regardless of location, according to the Court, if it is held with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The two-part criteria, first outlined by Justice Harlan in his concurring decision, is whether the individual has expressed an actual expectation of privacy and whether the expectation be one that society is willing to acknowledge as reasonable. The reasonableness of citizens expectations regarding the preservation of privacy is determined based on what is reasonable in society and what is reasonable for an individual. The Court mentioned this aspect during the case of aerial surveillance. Aerial surveillance is different from CCTV surveillance, but technology cannot give authorities the right to ignore the Constitution.
In addition, the Court stated that the society did not recognize any objectively justified expectations of confidentiality in open fields. This holds true in both the pre- and post-Katz eras. For example, in the case of Oliver, police followed a tip that marijuana was cultivated at the backyards of the defendant. The cops got out of their car and walked for approximately a mile around the gate into his property until they came across massive marijuana grow. The Court ruled that the search was conducted illegally and not in accordance with the Fourth Amendment concerning the open fields doctrine.
CCTV surveillance can be compared to aerial surveillance since aerial research has also been investigated for constitutionality. Aerial surveillance was conducted in Baltimore, and this case was investigated on the topic of whether this kind of surveillance complies with the Fourth Amendment. According to the Courts ruling, it was decided that aerial surveillance was not a search. Therefore, this kind of surveillance complies with constitutional norms. However, new technologies make it possible not only to observe but also to review the videos made. This enables the police and those involved in surveillance to monitor the private lives of law-abiding citizens. Therefore, video surveillance can be considered a violation of privacy rights. In order to use video surveillance materials, the police need a warrant. The police would be permitted to eavesdrop on Baltimore residents without a warrant and approval to utilize CCTV surveillance for criminal investigations.
As previously stated, the Court has reviewed the subject of aerial surveillance from the perspective of the Fourth Amendment multiple times. According to the Courts decision, aerial surveillance does not contradict the Constitution. Consider the case of California vs. Chiraolo, where a man was accused of growing marijuana in the yard. The police employed a private plane to track this man after receiving an anonymous tip. Further, a search warrant was issued for a private territory. The Court determined that these actions are legal and justified. Hence the question arises whether surveillance of private life is considered reasonable.
There is a spillover effect of the Constitutional Right of Privacy on a CCTV surveillance system. Law-abiding residents living in a building in the range of a video surveillance system may not be willing to sacrifice their privacy to influence street crime. The constitutional right to privacy is an amalgamation of several separate rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Unintentional surveillance of the private lives of law-abiding people can mean non-compliance with the Constitution. The effective application of the right to privacy against the spillover impact of CCTV surveillance of nonpublic activities is hampered by two major barriers. The first is the requirement of citizens to consider the conflict in Court; the second is the right to privacy within certain limits that comply with the Constitution. The two factors mentioned make the process of filing a lawsuit for illegal surveillance of personal life difficult. In order for the Court to prohibit the Government from its actions, the plaintiff must show significant evidence that he has received damage as a result of surveillance or may receive damage in the future.
The right to privacy is one of the most important of the various interests at stake in the governance of the digital world. It is also one that has been recognized as a common interest in international law. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil states that: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. (The UN General Assembly, 1966). It is a fundamental human right that all members of the human community have and that all states must respect whenever they operate on their territory or have effective control over people. Thus, it appears that, at least in terms of the right to privacy, the promise of community engagement in digital governance is matched by the text of international law.
This contribution examines how well state practice in the area of digital privacy law fulfills the promise of the universal right to privacy. It looks at the laws of the United States and the European Union, which are often regarded as two of the most important countries for digital privacy. It also focuses on a policy area that has recently sparked a lot of public interest and debate: national security surveillance by intelligence agencies.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and association. However, Government acts that may restrict freedom are dangerous because the notion of what prohibited behavior is is inaccurate and ambiguous. State law will not comply with the Constitution if it prevents people from expressing themselves freely in accordance with the laws. The balancing criterion, which was established by the Supreme Court, takes into account the interests of the state and decides to what extent the state violates the human rights mentioned in the First Amendment. Restrictions imposed by the Government that may infringe on freedom of expression are legal as long as the state has a compelling interest. That is, depending on how significant the states interest is, a balancing act will be established in accordance with the First Amendment. Lets imagine a scenario where video surveillance will be challenged with the help of the First Amendment.
A political rally is taking place on the street where the surveillance cameras are located. According to the plaintiffs, surveillance cameras installed on the street prevent more people from participating in the rally, as people will be afraid of government surveillance. In this regard, they are demanding an injunction and compensation for damages. However, given the case law, the probability that the claim will be rejected is very high. This is owing to the fact that the application of surveillance cameras will be different from the governments previous strategies of using pictures and covert operatives. The most significant problem for the defendants is that video surveillance is carried out in open places where any member of society can observe a persons actions.
It follows that case law does not fully affect the use of video surveillance systems by the police. Even if these systems have successfully stopped street crime, their potential for widespread abuse necessitates certain restrictions, even if constitutional concerns are not present. Constitutional norms, on the other hand, are the basic requirements for CCTV users. The Fourth Amendments exclusionary rules insufficiency in providing a meaningful remedy, as well as the difficulty courts have in creating exact restrictions, suggest that statutory law and administrative regulations are a better way to regulate CCTV use.
It is required to determine the competent authority which is responsible for the implementation of limits on video surveillance undertaken by the police in order to impose restrictions. The LEAA has the authority to manage the requirements for the allocation of funds by the state. He must analyze the causes and consequences of using video surveillance. LEAA is engaged in distributing the state budget to various organizations in accordance with their goals. Thus, if States receive funding from LEE to install and purchase cameras, then the LEAA may require restrictions on their use. Since LEAA has been working in support of video surveillance for quite a long time, this approach may be feasible.
However, the Supreme Court restricts the powers of Congress regarding trade if it prevents the state from performing operations. This fact reduces the likelihood of supporting the previous approach. Congress cannot influence the entire police force, but it can apply some procedural laws that prohibit the use of video surveillance without federal approval. Any video surveillance system must have the appropriate license. Federal or state agencies should issue such a license to the police only if there is sufficient evidence showing its necessity. The police authority, in turn, must provide detailed reasons and reasons for the use of video surveillance and justify its effectiveness for the operation.
Licenses should be issued only for the use of video cameras in places with a high crime rate. It is also possible to hold hearings and votes on the installation of cameras in certain places. If a large number of law-abiding citizens vote against the installation of cameras, then it should not be carried out. Also, it is important to establish technical requirements for the equipment of the state prosecutors office. Cameras should be marked and installed in prominent places so that they can be noticed.
Video surveillance is used by the police in order to recognize street crimes and prevent them. However, it is important to remember that the introduction of technology should not contradict the Constitution. In order to protect the rights of citizens, courts and legislative bodies must take into account certain guarantees provided by legislation. Based on constitutional principles, this work examined the constitutionality of police use of video surveillance. A hypothetical scenario was mentioned, which showed that it would not be easy to restrict the installation of CCTV cameras since government agencies have the right to do so under certain conditions. Video surveillance has great opportunities to maintain order and the safety of citizens because its exclusion would be too risky. However, the state should not exceed its official powers and respect the right to privacy and freedom of expression. A compromise is required: CCTV surveillance should be employed, but only under strict conditions. Then it will be possible to reap its considerable benefits while also guaranteeing citizens fundamental rights. Following such an approach the CCTV surveillance is considered constitutional.
References
Gee, H. (2020). Surveillance State: Fourth Amendment Law, Big Data Policing, and Facial Recognition Technology. [Review of the book The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law inforcement, by A. G. Ferguson]. Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy.
Jang, Y., Kim, D., Park, J., & Kim, D. (2018). Conditional effects of open-street closed-circuit television (CCTV) on crime: A case from Korea. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 53, 9-24.
Piza, E. L. (2019). The crime prevention effect of CCTV in public places: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41, 1430.
The United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty Series, 999, 171.
Tokson, M. (2020). The emerging principles of fourth amendment privacy. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 88, 1.
Welsh, B. C., Piza, E. L., Thomas, A. L., & Farrington, D. P. (2020). Private Security and Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Surveillance: A Systematic Review of Function and Performance. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(1), 56-69.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.