FOURTH AMENDMENT STILL APPLIES

When the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was created, the only tools law
enforcement had for searching a person and his property were their hands
and eyes.

Today, technology has given law enforcement tools that James Madison and
the other great minds that crafted theBill of Rights couldn't even conceive
of, yet the principles espoused in that great document need to be adhered
to now more than ever.

A few of these technological advances have drawn the ire of civil
libertarians, privacy advocates and conservatives.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that thermal imaging devices cannot
be used to determine if someone is growing marijuana in his home unless
police have a search warrant. The decision stemmed from a case in which a
man was arrested on drug charges after police, using a thermal camera,
detected heat patterns from his house suggesting a drug farm.

The high court rightfully ruled that using a device capable of seeing
through walls didn't fall under the rule that lets police conduct a
warrantless search if the evidence of wrongdoing is in plain sight. Heat
may escape a house, but it requires special equipment to see it, so it is
not really a "plain view" issue.

Some may see that as a pro-drug ruling or another case of the court
handcuffing cops who are trying to do their jobs. But this is a matter of
making sure police are using the tools of their trade the right way.

A law enforcement body that can monitor people in their homes is something
you'd find in totalitarian regimes or George Orwell's "1984," not in the
United States.

If a police officer has the need to search someone's home, he should go
before a judge and convince the court that there is sufficient evidence of
wrongdoing before he employs surveillance devices or kicks down the front door.

Other technologies that need careful watching in this area are the
"Carnivore" system and facial recognition software.

Carnivore is capable of intercepting e-mail messages on the Internet based
on certain criteria, such as who is sending or receiving the message. It is
a high-tech version of intercepting mail or wiretapping.

With the Internet the new medium for personal and commercial communication,
it is frightening to think the government can break in on private
communications.

Congress is already looking into the matter, and we think it should make it
perfectly clear to the FBI that the rules of obtaining a court order after
demonstrating probable cause apply, and any deviation will not be tolerated.

Facial recognition software takes a picture of a face and compares certain
key features with those in a database. It was used during the Super Bowl to
look for criminals, and at least one community is planning on using it to
scan streets and public areas.

This one's a bit more challenging in the area of civil liberties.

People give up some privacy when they go to public venues. For example, if
you go to a football game at LaVell Edwards Stadium, you can't cry invasion
of privacy if you get on TV; there's little room for privacy at a sporting
event open to the general public and you're one of 65,000 people in attendance.

Same thing when you're on a public street or in your front yard, in plain
view of whoever passes by.

But it would be another thing if police were to set up a camera in a hall
where a private party was being held just to see who was there. Again,
police would need to convince a judge that there was sufficient evidence of
criminal activity before invading private space.

While we want police to utilize the latest technology to catch criminals,
we want them also to follow the timeless principles in the Fourth Amendment
that protect the innocent from a tyrannical government.

Members of The Daily Herald editorial board are Publisher Kirk Parkinson,
Managing Editor Mike Fitzgerald, Opinions Page Editor Donald W. Meyers,
Community Editor Sharon Gholdston, and Lehi residents Richard W. Smith and
Chad Spence.