In a world that is fueled by constant technological advances, access to these innovations is vital for law enforcement. Artificial intelligence, machinery that imitates the human mind such as drones, has grown widely popular for recreational purposes. As police officers continue to press for aerial surveillance to become a new norm, most civilians argue that their Fourth Amendment is at risk of being violated. Contrary to popular belief, this constitutional provision only shields persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not in the slightest ban warrantless aerial surveillance. Gary Shapiro, CEA President, voices that the usage of unmanned vehicles has the potential to not only revamp law enforcement but also support missions related to terrorism, fugitive investigations and rescue operations (Alderton, 2018).
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reinforces GaryShapiro’s statement by revealing that UAVs aptitudes were confirmed during the Dykes hostage negotiation. Law enforcement was successfully able to monitor the escalating situation through a microscopic detective camera that linked the underground dugout to the outside world, without jeopardizing the life of an officer. Ethan Gilman, a five-year-old walked free on February 4th after being held captive for six excruciating days. Law enforcement constantly accentuates the revolutionary power unmannedtechnologies can have stated that one drone is the equivalent of having twenty officers on guard. Regardless of law enforcement’s need to keep up with modern technology, citizen’s concerns about invasion of privacy and security propagate. People argue that anything passing through public skies should require a license; however, the FAA by law cannot force the registration of drones since they are not model aircrafts, thereby posing an uneasy feeling of control on society. Granting the police access to UAVs would interfere with the rights of the public because cities would not be able to regulate the flight of drones (Farrier, 2017).
If the government cannot instill laws that mandate enrolments of any kind, determining whether or not two indistinguishable aircraft’s purpose is business or pastime would be impossible. Additionally, individuals feel as if the police force does not need any more equipment to militarize itself. The gathering of information about a person(s) in a private location without a warrant is an invasion of privacy. Conclusively, it is necessary for law enforcement to integrate modern-day technology into their profession to keep up with the societal crime.
Aerial surveillance does not pose a threat to any persons or the constitution but rather would be fused into society as a new form of security. Katz. v.
United States (1967) is noteworthy because it stressed the fact that the Fourth Amendment does not protect places. Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectation of privacy test acts as a check for officerswho conduct Fourth Amendment searches (Freely, 2017). This test proves that the government is not out to spy on people but rather