Regular price: $19.95
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $19.95
In this potent new volume in Oxford's Inalienable Rights series, legal expert Stephen J. Schulhofer argues that the Fourth Amendment remains, as the title says, more essential than ever. From data-mining to airport body scans, drug testing and aggressive police patrolling on the streets, privacy is under assault as never before - and we're simply getting used to it. But the trend is threatening the pillars of democracy itself, Schulhofer maintains. "Government surveillance may not worry the average citizen who reads best-selling books, practices a widely accepted religion, and adheres to middle-of-the-road political views," he writes. But surveillance weighs on minorities, dissenters, and unorthodox thinkers, "chilling their freedom to read what they choose, to say what they think, and to associate with others who are like-minded." All of us are affected, he adds. "When unrestricted search and surveillance powers chill speech and religion, inhibit gossip, and dampen creativity, they undermine politics and impoverish social life for everyone." Schulhofer offers a rich account of the history and nuances of Fourth Amendment protections, as he examines such issues as street stops, racial profiling, electronic surveillance, data aggregation, and the demands of national security. The Fourth Amendment, he reminds us, explicitly authorizes invasions of privacy - but it requires justification and accountability, requirements that reconcile public safety with liberty.
Combining a detailed knowledge of specific cases with a deep grasp of Constitutional law, More Essential than Ever offers a sophisticated and thoughtful perspective on this important debate.
Customer ReviewsMost Helpful
By LVK on 02-23-15
Asserts that police discretion and relaxed or missing judicial oversight results in abuse and mistrust. The author did not address, let alone convince, that even the most stringent judicial review of police discretionary searches would have resulted in a different outcome. Would communities respond more favorably if all police searched / seizures were judicially approved? Or would those communities merely turn their allegations of racism toward judiciary? Hasn't this happened in FISA court already as high percentage of applications are judicially approved ?