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, Middle School
by J.D., an 8th-grade Pacific Grove Middle School student

Warrantless Wiretaps

On September 11, 2001, our country was attacked by terrorists on a level never seen before. Because of the life-altering events of 9/11, our government has an obligation to protect us from further attacks. Some believe that the government is abusing their authority by listening in on, and reading emails without a warrant. Others believe that warrantless wiretapping can help guarantee our citizens' safety. At first it would seem that our government is violating Constitutional Rights, on the other hand, the government cannot do its hob of protecting our country if we do not agree to limit some of our rights.

The Supreme Court has determined that privacy is one of our fundamental rights. Additionally, the California Constitution states: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possession, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." If the government were to listen to your phone calls or read your emails, they would not be invading your privacy because they will never have any contact with you or affect your life in any way. Furthermore, you would never even know if your calls or emails were being tapped. If you are not a terrorist, why would you care about other people who are strangers possibly listening to your conversation or reading your emails? You don't know these people, and they don't know you. They would only be searching for a threat against our country and ignore any personal or private information. The safety of our country is more important than a small portion of our supposed privacy.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution says, "No state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its juristiction the equal protection of the laws." Warrantless wiretapping does not deprive us of life, liberty, or property because the government is only screening for threats. A person's due process of law will come when the judge issues a warrant to further investigate that person after probable cause is found.

Another Constitutional principle to consider when allowing warrantless wiretapping is the balance of power between the three branches of government. The Constitution calls for a system of checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government. This system of checks and balances can be maintained when the Executive branch detects a threat through wiretapping and then goes to the Judicial branch for a warrant. The Executive branch must then obtain a warrant describing the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Without warrantless wiretapping the series of events that happened on September 11 are bound to happen again. Warrantless wiretapping can help stop terrorists before they ever get the chance to destroy our country and its citizens. As terrorists develop more deadly and organized attacks, we must also consider better ways to stop them in their tracks. The Founding Fathers never anticipated people using such advanced ways of communication as email and telephone conversations. In the fourth amendment it states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers...shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This amendment does not expressly state that listening to phone calls and reading emails is unconstitutional. If the founding fathers could see the events of today, they would want to protect American lives first and foremost. Therefore, these actions do not violate the Constitution because the government is not going into anyone's house or seizing any physical property. If the government decides to take it to that extent, they will need to obtain a warrant the way the writers of the Constitution intended.

In conclusion, warrantless wiretapping should be allowed in the fight against terrorism. Even though some Constitutional Rights may be given up, it is a worthy sacrifice. We must constantly weigh individual rights versus a greater cause. Saving lives and protecting our country is more important than a few insignificant individual rights of privacy.