This paper considers justifications for and against searches. The first one is about vehicle inventory searches. This entails the routine inventory of an impounded vehicle. Vehicle inventory searches are necessary to ascertain the sate of suspected items, which might be on board, or any persons who could be suspect. This act however defeats the right to privacy and respect for enjoyment of life.
Person inventory searches are useful as they help authorities to study and investigate any persons in order to understand their history. They are significant when investigating crimes or interviewing an individual for some assignment. The limitation to this it restricts the right to privacy. By conducting this on any persons, the authorities negate the provision of human rights protection.
The sobriety checkpoints are important and legal since they help the police to conduct a search that could help authorities to arrest wanted persons or impound unwanted substances on the roads. This could help to reduce criminal activities. However, they may inconvenience motorists by undermining the right to privacy. There are also licenses and safety checkpoints. These are used with the aim of ensuring that all those driving meet the required threshold for road safety. This protects lives since un-road worthy use is curtailed. However, this contributes to limiting the right to use the roads, and the freedom of movement.
School disciplinary searches are done with the aim of ensuring that students do not store materials or substances that can harm others. Therefore, such contributes to saving of lives. However, it limits the rights of such students to liberty which provides for every individual’s freedom to freely do what they wish so long as, they do not interfere with other people’s rights. Conducting of government employee searches also serves to limit any effects that may be caused due to wrongful activities that could be done by some errant employees leading to suffering or harm to other innocent employees. However, this is a mockery on the rights to privacy and the respect for enjoyment of life.
The testing for drugs and alcohol on employees is also necessary. This would identify those who use such substances and therefore eliminate them from areas where such users are not required. This can lead to protection of some losses that may be caused due to errors resulting from the use of the substances. By doing the tests, freedom to privacy is undermined. The same exercise when conducted on students would guide the school administration on how best to plan to counter its effects. It however has the adverse effect of limiting the students’ rights to liberty to decide what to consume.
Searches on probationers are also significant. This could guide on whether these individuals have reformed. However, it is a limitation on the rights of these persons to be respected as envisaged under the privacy provisions (Worrall, 2006). Thus, searches are critical since they promote public good, although they somehow limit the rights of the concerned persons to privacy. However, before conducting a search, there must be substantial grounds to warrant a search.
The first situation involves vehicle inventory searches. In Arizona vs. Gant, the Supreme Court handled a search incident involving arrest (Kanovitz, 2012). Based on the case, searches are justified unless another exception to the warrant requirement applies. This supports searching where reasonable grounds exist to doubt luggage in a vehicle.
In conducting of sobriety checkpoints, a case in Michigan of State police Vs. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. In the license and safety checkpoints, as captured in the above case, the exercise is legal only so long as the primary purpose is regulatory rather than general criminal enforcement, except in the anomalous DUI checkpoint situation and in border or airport security checks.
In the cases of school disciplinary searches, in New Jersey, a student who was found smoking against the school regulations had her purse searched. The Supreme Court ruled that the search was reasonable since there were substantial grounds to doubt. From the above cases, it is clear that the law allows searches where reasonable grounds for doubt exist.