24th Annual Bill of Rights
Art and Essay Contest, 2007-2008

TOPIC:  WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS:
              Does Government access to telephone calls and emails
              without a warrant violate the Constitution?

3rd Prize, High School
by L.D, a 12th-grade Pacific Grove High School student

Warrentless Wiretaps

The Constitution was written to define the rights of its citizens. The act of wiretapping telephone calls and accessing email communications in the United States without a warrant creates a number of violations against the Constitution. Whether looking at privacy, the Patriot Act, or the Constitution, one can find that wiretapping without a warrant infringes on the rights of freedom given to all American citizens. Although wiretapping can be seen as a helpful tool in limiting future attacks on America, after calculating all of the factors dealing with warrantless wiretapping, the conclusion remains that it is overwhelmingly unconstitutional.

When answering the question on whether or not a program of surveillance is guaranteed under the Constitution, the word privacy must be examined. One definition of privacy is the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs. Privacy can be seen as an aspect of security and rights. Now that the definition of privacy has been established, the question of what rights are included in that definition must be settled. By enabling the government full access to Americans' phone calls and emails, is the government limiting privacy, a right held by the United States Supreme Court to be one of our fundamental rights? Yes, in fact it seems that they are "pushing the envelope" of protecting that right. The word "wiretapping" in today's world causes many people to wonder how free they really are, and how far the government would go to protect our interests. Even if done for a "good" cause, knowing that your emails can possibly be read by the United States Government is a scary thought. Currently, telephone calls and emails that people once considered private matters can be accessed by our government. When forming the Constitution, the framers felt strongly that citizens were entitled to privacy. Before the Revolutionary War, Massachusetts enacted an excise tax that required people who owned homes to tell the tax collectors how much rum had been drunk in their homes. Immediately people argued that what was done inside a person's home was of no business to the government, Just as Americans have the right to keep their drinking records private, people should be able to keep their conversations and written communications private.

After understanding the importance of the right to privacy, which gave the government authority to wiretap, must be examined. The Patriot Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. While the act involves a wide range of titles, the most controversial involves increasing the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and email communications. Along with the increasing ability to use surveillance on Americans, came the "sneak and peek" law, which allows for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. This so-called "sneak and peek" code directly violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. Secret searches of a person's home or office without the knowledge of that person are illegal. Even if the President were to start a program of surveillance by wiretapping, he/she would need the permission of that person. Also under the Fourth Amendment, authorities seeking a search warrant are required to list what they are looking for and where they are looking for it. Therefore to allow email and telephone surveillances to occur without a probable cause is to directly violate the fundamental rights guaranteed for all people under the Constitution. Although the Patriot Act was developed to provide a safer America, many rights given by the document are not valid under the Constitution.

The idea of the government issuing a program of surveillance by wiretapping personal telephone calls and accessing email communications is unreasonable and completely unconstitutional. As stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, due process is a principle that the government must respect for all of a person's legal rights. These legal rights are violated when the govenment deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Government deprives liberty, property, and to a certain extent life by enacting a program of surveillance. The basis of liberty is freedom. Therefore, allowing the government to come into the homes of people, means to essentially take away the right of freedom for all people. Just as all American citizens have the right to freedom, they also have the right to property. Should property, the right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, include the personal communication of words in telephone calls and emails? Yes, because communication occurring inside the home, with phone calls and emails, are a part of a person's property. A common example of a person's property is garbage. Garbage, when inside the home, cannot be legally searched without a warrant by the government. Telephone calls and emails that are made in the home are considered property, like garbage. Taking away the right of liberty and property is to take away the uniqueness of life in our land of the free. Due process under the United States Constitution was meant to limit the control of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. But when the executive branch of government is given the right to invade freedom and search personal property, their powers are, instead of being restrained, expanded.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights and powers given to the federal government and to protect the liberties of our citizenry. Knowing that the government has no powers that were not authorized for them in the Constitution, the government certainly does not have the power to initiate a new program that allows wiretapping without warrants because it is not in the Constitution. After analyzing the right of privacy under the Supreme Court the validity of the Patriot Act, and the rules of property under the Constitution, there is sufficient evidence available to recognize that a Presidential program of surveillance violates the right guaranteed under the Constitution.