Public Safety and Individual Rights

Introduction

The problem of public safety has become more urgent nowadays due to the growing safety threats and other factors. The difficulty of addressing this issue refers not only to designing reliable technological ways of meeting safety challenges, but also to preserving individual rights. The paper will outline and discuss the major challenges in the public safety sphere as they relate to the national interests and individual rights. Although the level of various public safety threats is very high, all individual rights should be preserved, because they form the foundation of the just society. The government should perform its functions without violating the rights and liberties of its citizens.

Responsibilities of Government Officials, Security Personnel, and Private Citizens

Several parties perform the functions of establishing and maintaining appropriate public safety standards. The US legislature and local jurisdictions determine a statutory authority that regulates the responsibilities of government officials and other professionals at different levels. Nowadays, numerous public safety networks operate to create the proper environment for government officials. These networks allow to coordinate the efforts and measures taken by government officials and agencies (Allen, 2015). Communication technologies also play an important role in this process, as they contribute to the spreading of important information and its timely assessment.

The Department of Public Safety is the major governmental agency that performs key functions related to public safety (Allen, 2015). First of all, it organizes a variety of rescue operations, including the prevention of fire and other threats. Secondly, it provides the licensing of police and security guards in relation to crime prevention and other related services. Thirdly, it develops emergency plans and controls the performance of the Office of Emergency Services (Ferdik, Wolfe, & Blasco, 2014). The Department also encourages effective communication among various governmental agencies in order to generate the expected results. 

The operations of the Department have several levels grouped according to the corresponding responsibilities and functions. The first level is a federal one, and it is responsible for the general supervision of emergency services and public safety laws. The second level is a state one, and there are various state departments. They concentrate on the major emergency and public safety problems in their areas. The third level is the local one (Ferdik et al., 2014). It refers to local jurisdictions with narrow responsibilities. Code enforcement officers may operate at this level in some states.

The role of security personnel in promoting public safety is substantial. Security officers are responsible for protecting assets, property, and individuals. They may detect illegal or potentially illegal actions, collect evidence, and report to the specialists and agencies that have higher law enforcement rights. Security officers are not responsible for making arrests, but may perform this function (in particular, citizens’ arrests) if they have the corresponding request from police or other agencies (Allen, 2015). There are various types of security personnel in the United States. For example, public security officers operate in governmental agencies, while private security officers operate in the private sector on the contractual basis (Ferdik et al., 2014). Parapolice firms participate in providing criminal investigation and arresting criminals.

Private citizens also may contribute to promoting public safety. On the one hand, they may be the part or have contractual relationships with private police. As private police have direct contractual obligations with their customers, they have additional motivation to increase the effectiveness of the provided functions (Allen, 2015). However, there are different opinions regarding the long-term efficiency and comparative advantages of private police in comparison with the traditional one. On the other hand, private individuals may contribute to public safety through the reporting of suspicious activities they observe. Moreover, modern technologies allow to provide such reporting with the minimal efforts by using smartphones or other devices.

Practices Related to Search, Seizure, and Surveillance

There are various practices related to search, seizure, and surveillance. These practices and laws regulate the responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, and private citizens. The Fourth Amendment protects two interrelated individual liberties: the right to privacy and that of being free from arbitrary invasion. A search refers to the situation when government employees or agencies violate the justified expectations of privacy (Allen, 2015). A seizure refers to the interference with the owner’s property rights (Ferdik et al., 2014). The owner should have reasonable expectations of preserving his/her privacy. In particular, any privacy violations should not be arbitrary, but supported by the corresponding evidence. Surveillance refers to the monitoring of people’s actions and activities performed by the government or other authorized agencies for minimizing public safety threats and other related purposes (Wilson & Grammich, 2015). Such practices are becoming more widespread in many developed countries.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from the unjustified violation of their property rights by the government and other parties. It uses the exclusionary rule and the warrant requirement for determining whether the actions of police officers or other government agents are justified or not. Government officials and law enforcement officers have to obtain warrants that describe in detail the place of their search as well as the items they may seize (Sharari & Faqir, 2014). Judges evaluate probable causes on the basis of all available evidence. In some urgent situations and when probable cause exists, police officers may perform warrantless searches. Moreover, the fact of the owner’s voluntary consent is also a legitimate justification for search. Due to the growing terrorist threats, the US PATRIOT Act enables law enforcement officers to search telephones and emails if the communication is believed relate to domestic or international terrorism (Sharari & Faqir, 2014).

The above restrictions usually do not apply to corrections. In this case, prison administrators have the legal basis for organizing random searches that are not supported by the reasonableness standard (Wilson & Grammich, 2015). This legal position exists because an additional control is reasonable in relation to the criminals. Thus, they cannot apply for the protection of their rights and privacy. Security personnel has similar rights and opportunities for participating in search and seizure as private citizens. The Fourth Amendment only applies to the situations when government officials initiate searches or seizures (Sharari & Faqir, 2014). Therefore, security personnel and private citizens have more opportunities in this regard. For example, security guards may search the customers’ backpacks without their permission if they have the information that shoplifters have similar descriptions. The Fourth Amendment does not protect customers in this case. At the same time, both security personnel and private citizens should provide reasonable arguments that justify such actions.

The Use of Force by Police, Corrections, and Private Security

It is reasonable to specify the cases when police, corrections, and private security can use force. The government recognizes that the use of force by the police is necessary in some cases. In particular, police officers may use force for self-defense or when protecting the interests of other individuals or social groups (Wilson & Grammich, 2015). The concept of force continuum describes various degrees of police officers using physical power (Allen, 2015). The first stages include mere presence and verbalization. The officer may command the subject to perform such actions, and the mere presence of police may encourage the citizen’s responsibility. More serious measures include the empty hand control and intermediate weapons (Ferdik et al., 2014). Such measures are non-lethal and allow the officers to achieve goals with minimal harm done to the suspect. Finally, police officers may use deadly force that may cause serious injuries or death. However, such measures are possible when there are no other options available. There is also a legal term of excessive force, which refers to the situation when the use of force exceeds the degree justified under specific conditions.

Several key factors determine the use of force in correctional facilities. Firstly, the physical design of institutions contributes to the isolation of problematic areas. Secondly, modern surveillance technologies help identify questionable situations at earlier stages and minimize the need for using force (Wilson, & Grammich, 2015). Thirdly, the possibility of the multiple officers’ response minimizes the need for additional force (Ferdik et al., 2014). Finally, the criminal’s background information and the general context of a specific situation determine the degree of the legitimate use of force.

Private security officers also operate according to the continuum of force. They do not have any privileges regarding the use of force and should comply with the general regulations (Wilson & Grammich, 2015). The officers have the power of citizen arrest, and different states allow different degrees of physical force to control the person until police officers arrive (Allen, 2015). All states have licensing requirements in relation to private security officers in order to ensure their high qualification. The officers may also be responsible for the use of excessive force.

Individual Privacy Rights

Although the current legislation system recognizes the need for search, seizure, and surveillance, it also protects basic individual privacy rights. Persons may use the concept of the invasion of privacy to initiate a lawsuit against people violating his/her rights. The Fourth Amendment constitutes the basis for the legal protection in the United States. It safeguards individuals from unwarranted searches and seizures. The First Amendment also extends the legal protection of privacy through guaranteeing the right to free assembly for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, or social background. The Fourteenth Amendment also increases the applications of privacy rights in relation to marriage, family, and similar spheres (Sharari & Faqir, 2014). In general, the US Constitution makes any violation of citizens’ privacy rights by the government (beyond the explicitly defined scope) illegal.

Both the federal and state levels recognize the right to privacy. Moreover, a large number of states consider it to be an inalienable right (Sharari & Faqir, 2014). It means that neither the government nor other parties can violate it. At the same time, the Fourth Amendment restricts the functions of the government regarding searches and seizures, but does not mention explicitly the obligations of private individuals. The courts’ previous decisions constitute the basis for assessing such actions.

Conclusion

Numerous public safety challenges have emerged in the 21^st century. The government tries to provide an adequate response to the growing social threats. For this reason, it uses modern surveillance and other technologies. Government officials, security personnel, and private citizens have different responsibilities and opportunities. Regulations regarding the use of force require to minimize its degree according to the social needs and peculiar conditions the situation. The Fourteenth Amendment constitutes the basis for protecting individual privacy rights and liberties. It provides security in case of unwarranted seizures and searches initiated by government officials. As it does not address the responsibilities of private individuals, the previous courts’ decisions allow to examine such cases. However, strong and socially important needs should exist for justifying any searches or seizures. The role of privacy is vital in the modern world, and many states declare it to be an inalienable right. Thus, no party can violate it beyond the scope of cases mentioned in the legal documents and requirements. Although the level of public safety threats tends to increase, the government and private individuals should not violate privacy rights. Moreover, it is necessary to determine the proper balance between social needs and individual rights.