Privacy relative to Government intrusion

In assessing the scope of personal privacy relative to investigation, surveillance, intelligence gathering, search and arrest certain tests come into effect justifying lawful acts which otherwise are considered unlawful invasions into personal security, freedom and privacy. In Terry v. Ohio 392 U. S. 1, 88 S. Ct. (1968) the Court ruled that evidence and facts must be proven to overshadow the impropriety of unlawful searches, seizures and arrests protected by the purviews of the Fourth Amendment.

The theory and basis for interpretation of probable cause in any investigation, intelligence gathering, surveillance or intrusion into personal privacy rests on reason. How would a reasonable and prudent officer act in light of the facts, circumstances, suspicions and governmental figures experience and training. The balance between duty and discretion and what the law affords balances in relation to the protected rights of the person or persons subjected and officer’s right to protect law, justice and the public .

II. REASONINGS

The prudence observed is in light of the law, the circumstances, as well as from articulating facts, reason and retrospect as a professional agent duty bound to observe and weigh all rights and reason at issue . Terry in footnote 2 to paraphrase the government intrusion and interest must be weighed and balanced in correlation to intrusion that may exist from mere circumspect to more suspect. The fact that a reasonable belief must be articulated to conform to the intrusion seems the rule of law but only in as much as practicable.

This is seen less the case especially in relation to Banking Securities laws, RICO and the Patriot Act as there seems to be more to the matter than want of suspicion but less than abuse of discretion and excessive privacy intrusion. III. CONCLUSION The following of a person as was in the case of Terry by the officers following Terry and Chilton as they cased a storefront many times over in a matter of minutes would seem abusive if it had been a mere few glances or reasonable suspicion of interest in the store itself .

Had Terry and Chilton walked away from briefly viewing the store reasonable suspicion would not have surmounted. The fact that Terry and Chilton were appearing to be staking out and casing the store was reasonably concluded given the situation. The mounting, weighing and balancing of reason and prudence of the officer all substantiate ability to act in lawful right to afford the governmental intrusion over the person and public spectrum of privacy, security and liberty.

The fact that an officer acting in his official capacity need weigh his duty and discretion in relation to the matter before him are based on one or more of these rules 1) What a reasonable officer would do, 2) do the exigencies of the circumstance afford an intrusion with or without a warrant, 3) is the governmental intrusion balanced favorably over the intrusion into the individuals personal security and privacy, 4) do any specific laws afford a right to act officially or reasonably, and 5) is there any reason to justify an official act in relation to the interests of personal or public privacy and security.