Examples Of Intrude In The United States

Webster’s Dictionary defines Intrude as to put forward or interpose (oneself, one’s views, something) abruptly or without invitation. If I were to use it in a sentence, I would write “The government of the United States love to technologically intrude on its citizens.” Even though there are certain protections listed in the 4th Amendment including the right for all citizens to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure. It also states that unless given probable cause, there must be a warrant supported by cause, oath, and affirmation. When it comes to House Arrest, some may say the fact that there is a digital GPS on the convict’s ankle seeing and tracking every move they make is considered intrusive. The device is keeping tabs on the convict and giving the police an inside track on every move he/she makes. I do not think this is intrusive at all. It is a matter of safety and security for all citizens. Some may also say that state programs do not allow violent criminals or sex offenders to participate in House Arrest, so is the federal justice system not intruding
on the offender’s right to privacy? I think they have been charged and convicted, therefore given up their right to privacy while incarcerated, in turn, making the ankle bracelet not so intrusive. In the case of Terry vs.
Ohio, the Supreme Court of the United States held that police can stop and frisk a person if the officer has suspicion that the person has committed a crime, planning a crime, or about to commit a crime. The officer only has to have a reasonable belief that there is a weapon on their person. This “stop and frisk” is for the safety of the officer and everyone involved. When the law was passed, there was controversy surrounding how the police were choosing who got stopped and not. Many of the officers were taking it upon themselves to use racial profiling in the stop causing a race war against the police. Is the “stop and frisk” intrusive? Some think so, but I am not one of those people. When the law is used appropriately, then the stop and frisk is for safety and protection. This is the rationale behind
supporters. Sobriety Check points and DUI Roadblocks are put in place to protect drivers from being on the road with other drivers who are intoxicated and who do not belong behind the wheel of the car. Many believe because of the intrusiveness of the check points, that they are unconstitutional stating that they are a violation of the 4th Amendment. Many check points use portable breathing tests. These are usually not to be used until there is probable suspicion that a person in under the influence of drugs or alcohol. With no probable cause, there should be a limit to police power to step into the lives of private citizens minding their own business in the privacy of their own car. In a case of retained surgical instruments within a person after undergoing surgery, there is a certain expectation that once the patient is operated on, there should not be another operation due to this medical error. Although a “freak occurrence,” there are a handful of reported cases of this happening a year. Is medical procedures intrusive? In this case, there was an expectation that the surgeon knew what he/she were doing and had the knowledge base to keep this error from happening. On the flip side, are blood transfusions considered an intrusive procedure? There are a few religious beliefs that state they do not want anyone else’s blood in their system but their own. If a victim was brought in and had those beliefs, a life-saving blood transfusion would be considered very intrusive and illegal. Another issue that is brought up with how government intrudes are the use of Station house detention. This is the detention of a suspect after arrest but before formal charges have been brought against the suspect. Also, we can bring up protective sweeps within this subject. This is a search incident to arrest and essentially protects the cops and others on the premises at the time of the arrest. In the Constitution, the Founding Fathers state that all citizens shall have these rights, privileges, and protections. This is clearly set forth for citizens of the United States. What if any of the preceding things happened to non-citizens? Do they have the same rights as citizens do if they are in our country legally? They should. The government should protect visitors from other countries just as they protect everyone else in the US.