Are Law Enforcement Cameras Againsting Personal Privacy?

ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS AGAINST PERSONAL PRIVACY?Name:Institutional Affiliation:
Personal privacy is a big issue that people have fought for since the inception of governments across the globe. In America, for instance, the rights of privacy is entrenched into the constitution particularly in the 4th amendment which quotes that, “People have the right to be secure in their houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches or seizures”. It further states that they should not be violated through issuance of surveillance warrants to their privacy without probable cause. In this light, this paper will discuss whether law enforcement cameras go against privacy (Smith, 2009).
The whole genesis of applying camera surveillance by law enforcers was to hatch any unlawful activities like terrorist attacks or to gather information on suspicious persons and organisations. The motive is good, but in carrying out the mandate, it violates the United States Constitution which the law enforcers are supposed to uphold and protect. By it being against the constitution, then it goes without saying that the public will not seat well with it since they view this as an act of the police department trying to prove that they are above the law (Leese, 2013).
Another reason why the use of cameras by law enforcers gets highly disregarded is that it makes the public live in fear, people have to look at their backs and walk on eggshells out of fear of being caught on camera doing something they wouldn’t want to get recorded on camera(Blake, 2015). They further feel that this is a total violation of the Fifth Amendment as camera surveillance will provide evidence against them in case they take silence as a means of guarding against self-incrimination (Leese, 2013). Another big fear that the use of the camera by law enforcers pose is that it makes an assumption that everyone is a suspect under a microscope for a crime that is yet to happen. This assumption makes people question whether they possess any freedom at all (Blake, 2015).
Constitutionally law enforcers are supposed to seek out a warrant that has to specify why and where they want to invade someone’s privacy; they also have to have probable cause for the invasion or seizure. Law enforcers nowadays in some states wear body cameras all the time during their shifts. The cameras get recordings of what is going on around them even when there is no probable cause of having them on. They also disregard the clause of having specificity in where to record; all these can be ruled off as being inadmissible in court. Also, there is the issue of private and public conversation. The law requires all enforcement officers to respect the private conversations between them and the public. If an officer boards a taxi and engages the driver in a talk, then their conversation is considered private, and the driver cannot get arraigned in court for what he or she says during the ride, the use of cameras can violate this if the police officer gets it on camera (Smith, 2009).
The use of cameras by police officers especially outside their precincts for individuals not in custody requires the officer to make aware to all involved parties that they are on camera. The use of body cameras goes agains...