BY Nick Dial
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
-John Stuart Mill
If there ever was a quote that defines “the greatest generation,” this perhaps is it. For many, the reference in this quote, “better men than himself” may refer to broad range of people. For me, this represented much of my family, but especially my Uncle, June Bastian, as I spent much time interacting with him growing up. Born in 1982, I was blessed with being brought into this world by an older father of 48. My father was born in 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression. Growing up in this era instilled my father with a foundation of true grit and self-reliance. As a result, I was exposed to traditional American values; a hard work ethic and a deep love for the United States. As I grew older, that love turned into appreciation as I learned the sacrifices made to keep this land free. Like millions of other Americans, my family has an intimate relationship with defending this nation. My father was drafted into the army in 1959 at the age of 25, but carried out his duty faithfully. He won first place in his company of 250 men for shooting the M1 Garand, achieving rifleman medal of “expert.” He excelled in his duties, and I am proud of his service. My father, uncles, sister, and cousins have all worn the uniform of this nation, spanning every branch of service. This has provided me with core values that have become the binding fabric that builds up my character. Our elders before us have lived amazing lives, and truly put their life upon the alter of freedom, so that you and I may stand here today as free Americans.
During WWII, My Uncle Jack was a Seabee in the Navy serving in the Pacific Theater. My great-grandfather also served as a seaman in this same theater.
My Uncle Orville was a Colonel in the Army air corps/Air force from 1937-1957. He participated in the Nuremberg War Trials and spoke with Luftwaffe Commander Herman Goering the night before his suicide. Orville later became commander of Sherman Air force Base after the war. My Uncle June was a paratrooper, and fought in the Battle of the Bulge, later becoming a POW after being wounded and surrounded by German forces. For those fortunate enough to be graced by the passion of such people, it leaves a lasting impression, and creates a hunger for wanting more. For me, this journey really began at the age
of 14, and I am a better man for it.
(Top left, Lt. Colonel Orville Tangen, U.S. Air Force)
(Immediate right, Specialist 4th Class Dallas C. Dial, U.S. Army)
I was a young teenager, sitting at the computer desk. My Uncle June had come into town, and was in the next room. I was playing a combat video game, and the sound of machine gun fire was coming through the speakers. This caught the attention of my uncle, and he speaking saying, “war’s no game, and machine gun fire is no fun.” He had seriousness in his voice that demanded my attention. My Uncle never spoke about the war. It was something he chose not to discuss. The fact he started to talk about it took me by surprise, and I immediately gave him my full attention. As the years went by, I saw him more often during family visits to his farm. The older he became, the more he began to sharing his wartime experiences. Toward the end of his life, he began to become much more open about the war. I was an adult now, and while on fishing trips I listened attentively as he described his experiences as a soldier. This is where it really began to sink in on a personal level. As he explained stories about his brothers –in- arms and close friends killed in combat, tears filled his eyes, and for the first time I saw real pain behind these memories. There is nothing more sobering then seeing an old man cry over the shedding of blood spilled on the battlefield. As the saying goes, for the soldier there are two wars, the war on the outside and the war within. For the many that were laid to rest six decades ago, their war ended. However, for the WWII vets who came home and tried to move on with their lives, the war was still very real and very much alive. Many were still fighting this war, and I witnessed this fight in the tears of my uncle.
It’s a special thing to be privileged enough to hear these people’s experiences. Many have taken these opportunities for granted, however, time is running out. The Rosy the Riveters, the Woman’s Army Core (WAAC), and the men who served in every capacity of the war effort all have amazing experiences to share regarding the fight for freedom and the shaping of the America we enjoy today. More than 1000 per day are leaving us and returning home. More than ever it’s time to embrace those still with us and document their life stories to pass on to our children. When you see a WII vet, go out of your way to thank them for their sacrifice. While in a department store, I saw an old man with a hat that said “WWII Vet.” I walked up and thanked him for his service. The old man lit up and was very happy that I took the time to do this. He later told me he was in the Bataan Death March, and was lucky to have survived. Show them gratitude and thank them for what they did. Give these heroes a proper farewell for laying the foundation for a better life for us and our children. They have amazing life stories to share, and my Uncle June’s story is no exception.
June’s Story
June signed up in 1943 to become a paratrooper. He was assigned to the 513th parachute regiment as a demolitions expert. He was deployed to the Ardennes Rhineland and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. His company of 288 men was tasked with destroying a bridge to aid in the movement 38,000 American troops. As his company moved in the dead of night, an intense fight erupted between them and the Germans. Unable to move, they took a beating from the enemy. Of the 38,000 American troops, only 11,000 survived. June’s company had been battered. June had been wounded in battle, and they were encircled by the German Panzer divisions and troops. Of 288 men in his company, he was one of only 25 survivors. Knowing they had no other choice, they were ordered to throw their weapons down and surrender. The Germans moved in, and they were taken prisoner on Christmas Day 1944.
The U.S. government had no knowledge of June’s status, and issued a “missing in action” notification to his parents. June’s mother however never lost faith, writing to him every day, even while missing in action. They were moved to a prisoner of war camp in Limberg. Interestingly, the German officer who captured them was educated in Minnesota, and spoke excellent English. Life in the camp was hard. The focus was just to stay alive and exist. They had to sleep on hay covered ground and were provided no blankets. They had to rely on each others body heat to stay warm throughout the night. It was so crowded, men could hardly move without bumping into one another or climbing over each other. Another Problem was the bugs. Flea’s lice and other insects began to take their toll on the prisoners. When they awoke in the morning, their shirts would be covered in blood from the lice. The only food they received for the day was bread that came everyday at 4:00 PM. If you weren’t there when it arrived, you received nothing until the next day. The German prisoners would call out for a hundred men for work duty, often during the 4:00pm bread line. This caused some prisoners to hesitate, and were moved at rifle point. Some of the prisoners who hesitated were shot on the spot by the guards. The working conditions were hard, in freezing weather, and prisoners lacked adequate clothing or food. The men talked of escape, and this hope kept them alive.
As the American lines grew closer, the Germans began to prepare to abandon the camp. The prisoners noticed that the Germans were loading food in the back of trucks. That night, the Germans loaded 87 prisoners into an 8ftx40ft boxcar, and began to move them by train. The prisoners were so tightly packed, they could hardly move. The train did not go far before stopping in an Attempt to evade American P-47’s. The train stopped in a tunnel and waited for 48 hours. This put great strain on the prisoners, especially because the train was powered with coal, and black smoke from the engine filled the tunnel causing them to choke and fight for air. They were given nothing to eat or drink during this time, and the prisoners were forced to urinate and defecate among each other in the car. June managed to keep up some strength by nibbling from a piece of cheese he had hidden. The train finally began to move again, but soon came under attack from American P-38 Lightening s. The Germans had failed to mark the rain with “POW” and the planes were unaware that it was full of prisoners. The strafing from the air was intense, killing and wounding many prisoners in the attack. Men were forced to use the dead around them as shields to protect them from the incoming fire. The prisoners managed to break free from the cars, and began to take of their shirts. They used their bare backs to create more visibility, and formed “POW” with their bodies for the planes to see. The P-38’s spotted the human lettering, and tipped their wings in recognition. During the air raid there was much chaos, allowing June and two of his companions to escape by running into the marshes to evade the German guards. They asked other if they wanted to come, however they refused in fear of being found and shot by the German guards. As the Germans came out form their cover to round up the prisoners, June and his companions laid in the water of the marsh hiding from the searching German Guards.
Once the area was clear, they decide to try and reach the American lines. They walked during the night, and hid during the day. June stated “we knew they would look around rivers and streams, after all, you need water. So in the day we would hide in the middle of open fields, they never suspected someone to hide there.” Now gone for six days from camp, they took refuge in the trees. One time the Germans came so close they covered up with leaves, and remained in the woods for two days. June said “It was so cold lying under those leaves. The Germans looked all around for us but did not see us. So we got away, that was the only time I was really scared.” They again attempted to move toward the American lines. While in route, they came across eight French soldiers who had been prisoners for eight years. They were in rags, and wore rags around their feet for shoes. Not speaking any English, they were afraid of being taken for the enemy and carried a white flag. They allowed them to join their trio, and made their way back to American lines. June stated that it felt so good to get deloused for the lice it was almost as good as having something to eat. By the time June arrived at American lines, he was so malnourished that he spent months in the hospital recovering.
My uncle moved on with life marrying my aunt, Pauline. They settled down on a quiet farm in Colville Washington, and had nine wonderful children. Growing up, I had the privilege of spending time with them at the farm, and have some much cherished childhood memories as a result. In his old age, my Uncle suffered from declining health. This hit him hard, but like any survivor, he pushed through and carried on. The last time I spent with him on the farm was great. We sat on the back balcony, and talked casually overlooking the beautiful country side. Before leaving the farm, my uncle was on his way to a doctor’s visit. While leaving myself, I felt compelled to turn around and tell him that I loved him before he left. He replied “I love you too.”
We were headed back home to Arizona, and made it to California when the news came. June had passed on and gone home. We turned the car around, and made the trip back to Washington State for the funeral. The amount of family that showed was massive, and worthy of any family reunion that ever took place. The funeral service was beautiful, and the amount of people who showed up from the community of the town was impressive. It was obvious this man touched many lives, and was very loved by those in the community around him. I couldn’t help but be overwhelmed with emotion. My grandfather had passed away before I was old enough to remember him. My uncle June was the closest person I had to a grandfather, and was a fine one at that. He loved children, and the way he touched my life as a child was nothing short of magical. As I stood there over his casket, my heavy heart lightened. He was at peace, and the emotion I saw in his eyes when talking about the war would no longer be a factor. The war he had been waging within was over and no longer had to carry the heavy burden of those horrific memories. I bent down, kissed his forehead and said goodbye. “Thank you for what you did for us June, we miss you dearly, and we love you.”
I recently published a children’s book, A full Moon’s night. I created this book to inspire and help children realize what makes them unique in the world. “A Full Moon’s Night”, is a story-time ready book, with engaging original illustrations by the author. “A Full Moon’s Night”, is both stimulating and educational to the reader. Young children’s interest will be maintained as they learn how the moon plays an important role in the world’s Eco-system by keeping the ocean’s tide in balance, and providing light to the earth during the night. This story provides a life lesson that everyone is unique and has an important role to play.
You can order a full moon’s night here from amazon.com
Over the past decade, marriage has become an increasingly hot topic in the world of politics and social reform. When it comes to this topic, the nation is much divided and continues to hash out debates between various interest groups on where the government should stand. The far leftwing pushes for inclusion of gay marriage and state recognition. The far rightwing continues to push for an “official” government role in defining marriage as between “ a man and a woman.” Perhaps both sides are missing the point all together and that point is….why have government define marriage at all?
The United States is a fascinating case in man’s craving for freedom. This nation was carved out by the spirit and grit of those who came before us. Often with a longing for individual freedom and the ability to live one’s life in peace, without retribution or condemnation from others around them. After all, the pilgrims landed at Plymouth for this very reason. In England, the religiously charged government led in the persecution of these Christians. They fled to this land in hope of a better life, where they could be free to practice out their faith in peace and without government interference. The founding fathers of this great nation did not forget these lessons of the past. Remembering the tyrannical attributes that stem from religiously motivated government, they were careful to make a clear stance in the constitution. The king of England, King Henry VIII, believing to be of divine calling, decided that he no longer needed to adhere to the counsel of the popes (there was more than one at the time). After being refused a divorce by both popes, he went forth with the creation of the Church of England. This resulted in a nationally recognized church, and became the “official” religion of the kingdom. This of course led to intolerance of other’s faiths, which in return helped shape our very constitution today. In the first Amendment of the constitution, it states the following:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This amendment says nothing about government not being able to mention God, nor does it say that religion and government are to be alien to one another. Its purpose is to make it clear that unlike England, this nation would not have a “nationally recognized church such as the church of England.” Nor would this nation prohibit others from exercising their faith. The reason for briefly covering this history is that it is paramount to know where we have been to know where we are going. If we are to uphold the founding principles of this nation, and be true to our founding father’s vision for the future children of this great nation, we must first understand why they chose to word things as they did.
When it comes to the issue of marriage, both the hard left and the hard right seem to be missing the biggest question of all. Why regulate and define the word “marriage.” What right does government really have to interfere with the very personal choice of intimate companionship? Many groups with political motives influenced by their religious beliefs, constantly promote legislation of law based solely on their religious principles. The problem with this is that it gives favoritism of one social philosophical belief over another. It’s ok to hold these beliefs in high regard, however when is it acceptable to push these beliefs into law, forcing others to adhere to another’s religious principles? The very group of people that often promote smaller government and less intrusion are the same people that call for government to invade our personal lives and dictate to us what an “acceptable union” is. The following argument is often declared, but does it hold up to the test of scrutiny?
This country was founded as a Christian nation, and our laws reflect that reality: This argument holds fragments of truth. This nation was indeed founded by men of great faith and belief in a divine creator, but they were not all of one faith. Just like today, they differed in their beliefs. Many were raised with the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles, however even these men were not all of one uniform belief in Christianity. These were men of varying faiths and theology. While they may have formulated the creation of this nation in the spirit of Judeo-Christian principles, it was not in the literal sense. Social morality such as thou shall not kill of course is a religious principle that almost anyone can get behind. It is the cornerstone of Christianity however that laid much of the ground work for this nation. A belief that our rights come from our creator, and not given to us by man. We should be free to govern ourselves and not held to the arbitrary standards of another, a belief in social tolerance of others and their right to practice ones faith in peace. America represented a new beginning of social freedom. A place where many walks of life can live as one, but hold on to underlining Christian principles while doing it. It’s the spirit of these principles that helped shape America, not the literal carry-over of Christian law. Just like in law today, there is spirit of the law and letter of the law. Spirit of the law is not literally interpreting by the book, its enforcing law to reflect the true meaning behind its purpose. This helps ensure ethical treatment and avoid abuse of power. A cop issuing a ticket for one mile over the speed limit could be justified in letter of the law. However this would not be in spirit of the law, and would be an abuse of power. If one thinks this nation was founded to reflect Christian law in the literal sense, then this nation failed miserably. This would call for the illegalization of fornication, the simple act of lying, not just in court, but lying all together. A cardinal sin of course would be the denial of Christ as one’s savior. For one to argue that the nation’s laws are rooted in Christian law is short -sighted. Would this not place Jews and Muslims in direct violation due to the fact they do not believe in Christ as their savior? It is impossible for America to uphold its governing principles set forth by the founding fathers if this were the reality. Thomas Jefferson himself, a man of great faith, believed strongly in separating rule from religion. In response to the Danbury Baptists, who felt they were being discriminated against as a minority religion in their state. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” -Thomas Jefferson 1802
For America to stand on its founding principles, one must be able to separate personal religious convictions, while upholding balanced rule of law.
When it comes to the question of gay marriage or polygamy, where does the government come in? If one studies polygamy, you will find it was outlawed in 1862. Congress passed the Morril Anti-bigamy Act, which stated that polygamy would be illegal. This was a direct response to the growing LDS church of the time, and those who did not believe in the practice pushed for legislation to ban it. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was not protected under the constitution based on the principle that “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” This statement should come with some concern. The 1st amendment clearly sates “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and yet they state that this religious exercise of polygamy is not constitutionally protected? To state that laws are “made for the government of actions, therefore they can interfere with practices of others” is an ambiguous statement. The 1st amendment did not say you have a right from interference of opinion or belief, it clearly says “exercise.” According to the Webster’s dictionary, exercise is defined as “an act of employing or putting into play.” In other words, the Supreme Court contradicted the very language of the constitution based on an argument that law is made to govern the actions of others. While it’s true that law is made to govern, it should be based on sound logic and reason. Not arbitrarily put into place simply because it clashes with another’s personal convictions. With language like this, what other laws can be passed to “govern the actions of others despite the constitution?” In 1838, Missouri governor Boggs signed into law the “Mormon Extermination Order”, which led to further persecution of Mormons, legally killing them and driving them from their land. The very rights of these American citizens were violated, and yet we have another example of “laws are to govern the actions of others.”
Perhaps the government should remove itself from the act of dictating marriage. The solution is not to “legalize” gay marriage or polygamy. Instead, perhaps it should simply take a neutral position on the matter and refrain from “prohibiting” it. As Ronald Reagan once said, “the first duty of government is to protect the people, not run their lives”. If gay marriage or polygamy were legalized, it would put a burden on religious institutions who do not believe in this to uphold this law, which would be a direct violation of their constitutional rights. One must ask, what harm comes from consenting adults choosing to form a union? Regardless of the situation, as long as they’re happy and no innocent persons are harmed in the process, what right does the government, or anyone else for that matter, have to involve themselves in the business of others? Does it make sense that a man may legally live with one “official” wife, and yet can have “girlfriends” in the same home? How can it be argued by the government that this action is acceptable, but the minute they choose to try and “marry” another, it is now illegal? Where is the logic here? You could argue that it’s more moral for these adults to want to merry rather than live among one another outside of marriage. At least they are all agreeing to form a sacred bond or formal commitment with one another. One must dig deep inside and ask themselves honestly and with conviction, do I have a legitimate complaint or am I just adhering to my own personal bias? Is it right that people of one lifestyle choice be denied basic privileges afforded to others? Such as taxes, visitation rights, custodial rights, and insurance? How is it that in 2011 we remain to have a governing body which in effect creates second class citizens based solely on the fact that people may not “agree” with their lifestyle choice? Just because one has a religious belief that this social action may be wrong, does that give them the right to legislate this belief into law? By doing so, are they not advocating the stripping of ones liberties and individual freedom, solely because they “feel” it’s wrong on a social philosophical or theological level? If one believes it’s an abomination to God, that is their right, but why not let them be free to work it out with God. Since when are we our neighbor’s keeper? Why does one feel the need to dictate individual choice to others? Does Christianity not teach that God’s plan is founded around the concept of free agency? If so, then why do many who believe this feel it’s appropriate to limit another’s free agency? If one feels it’s a crime in the eyes of God, leave that to God and the individual to settle, there is no reason for third party interference to dictate another’s social behavior, so long as it does not harm you or another. In Mathew 7:1-5, it teaches
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Again, when it comes to social morality, what one chooses to do is a personal one. If they’re not a religious person, there is no reason they should be held to another’s religious standards. For the religious person who feels they are sinning, they should concern themselves with their own actions, and not the social actions of another. If they truly believe in a just God, then transgressions of another will be handled in the life hereafter, there need not be any interference by them. When it comes to the action of marriage, leave it to churches and religious leaders to formerly merry couples. It could be argued the only role the government needs to take is providing a recognized civil union among consenting adults. This way, the legal issues surrounding a couple are taken care of, such as power of attorney, ownership rights, taxes, and all other legal issues pertaining to a union. Marriage itself is a religious practice, and long has been a sacred ritual. This is why the terminology of “marriage” should be reserved for religious ceremonies and practices. This will help keep the integrity of the term marriage and it’s origins intact. When it comes to the government, they should simply remove marriage from its vocabulary and use “civil union” instead. This will provide a clear distinction between a government recognized practice from a religious one. Perhaps there is no need for defining it any further. The concept of marriage and what it represents should be left between the people and their clergy of choice.
The reason this issue is somewhat of a paradox for the United States, is that this is the land of promise, the land of freedom, and the land of tolerance. Our founding fathers were prophetic in the writing of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. One should remember these words written, when this great experiment of democracy took shape.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
One should then ask…, what is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Is one man’s happiness the same as another’s? When gay or polygamist consenting adults wish to engage into a union together, perhaps their pursuit of happiness and liberty is to be left alone by others, and be free to be happy together without ridicule, persecution, or legislation that penalizes them for not “confirming” to mainstream society. For a nation of people that pride themself on diversity, tolerance, and above all else liberty, maybe we have lost focus of the very thing that made this nation unique in the world. We all have different beliefs when it comes to social behavior and morality. I myself am a Christian and believe in traditional family values. However when people begin to call for the legislating of their fellow American because of lifestyle choice, which dictates that they be excluded from basic privileges afforded to others, perhaps we have lost that driving force which drove us to become Americans in the first place…..freedom.
By Nick Dial
When I went through the police academy, the subject that resonated with me the most was constitutional law, and search and seizure. Recently, California Supreme Court ruled that police do not need a warrant to search the contents of an individual’s cell phone when arrested. The logic stated by the court was that police generally are allowed to search the contents of the individual arrested, and therefore cell phones would be included. In my opinion, this is very short sighted and simplifies a much larger and more complicated issue. Cell phones today are mini computers. They contain massive amounts of private video, pictures, data, and private correspondence among many individuals, not just the owner of the phone. When discussing this issue among others in the law enforcement community, I became troubled at the various arguments I was hearing in support of the recent California Supreme Court ruling. The following are two arguments that were commonly stated.
1. “If you have nothing to hide, why should a law abiding citizen care if the police look at their cell phone? They should welcome any liberties at the police’s disposal to prevent crime.” This argument goes all the way back to the seventieth century, in fact, Lord Camden, the Chief Justice in England made this famous statement:
“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole.”
The obvious problem with claiming people should be willing if they have nothing to hide is that it’s a false logic. There are plenty of reasons why an individual may not want their personal belongings looked through. Regardless of those reasons, it should never be assumed by law enforcement that individuals wanting to practice their right to privacy are hiding something. In fact, it’s reasonable that someone may wish to exercise this right based on principle alone. It’s human nature to want privacy and have that privacy respected. For many, having those boundaries respected is what defines us as an individual. Having those boundaries treated as if their trivial and of no importance is not only disrespectful to the citizen, it leaves them with a sense of being devalued by those sworn to protect and uphold the very rights being called into question. The harsh reality is that police are not infallible, and the first level of protection comes from the citizen and their understanding of their rights. If they wish to allow the police to search, that is their choice, but failing to do so should never be considered an indication of guilt or deception.
2. “Police already can search bags and wallets incident to arrest. A cell phone is no different. Lack of red tape is a good thing for proactive policing.” It is true that police can search a car or bags and wallets incident to arrest; however these searches are for specific reasons. A bag, car, or wallet may contain a weapon, or contraband such as drugs. Using this to justify the search of electronic files on a phone is flimsy at best. A phone does not contain a razorblade in a text message, nor does it contain drugs in a text message as well. You can easily make the argument that “search” of the phone should be restricted to physical search, i.e. opening the battery compartment to see if there is a razor blade or drug contraband contained inside the device. However, electronic correspondence itself does not pose a threat to the officer nor does is have the ability to contain an item inside like a folded piece of paper.
One might ask, when would it be reasonable to search a phone’s files?…The 4th amendment states the following
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The 4th amendment makes a pretty clear statement that these rights should not be infringed upon without probable cause supported by a warrant attesting to the scope of the search. It has been accepted by the courts however, that the police are permitted to search contents incident to arrest, one major reason being officer safety. However if someone is pulled over and arrested for a DUI, would it be reasonable to search this person’s cell phone and files? For what purpose would this search take place? What relevance to the DUI would messages between various people have in this setting? Recently, a person wrote in to a site asking for legal advice concerning an incident that took place after they were arrested on allegations of possession of stolen property. They wrote the following:
“I was arrested for possession of stolen property (Which I had receipts for). While in the back seat of the police car the 8 cops past my phone and camera around looking at nude pics of my wife. When I commented to one of the officers that was our personal property and I did not want them looking at the pic, he laughed and said we will look at whatever we want. When I got out of jail I checked my Verizon online account and there were text picture/slide show sent to personal phones while I was arrested. When I filed a report the officer told me I shouldn’t have had them on my phone I know this is not right but is it illegal?”
This is a perfect example of why restraints such as warrants are put in effect in the first place. It is to protect overreaching by the government and those in positions of authority. It also serves as a safe guard of checks and balances in keeping investigations honest, clean, and solid. The fruits of a spoiled tree will undermine a case every time and warrants help prevent this from happening. While I personally feel this example does not represent the law enforcement community as a whole, and most police officers are much more professional then this, the fact remains that the very threat of this intrusion is real, and is never acceptable under any circumstances. Was the search of his phone justified? If so, a warrant from a judge could have been easily obtained telephonically with probable cause. If there was no legitimate reason, the embarrassment experienced by him, and his wife could have been prevented and their privacy protected. As police officers, we make a commitment to uphold the constitution, and protect the civil liberties of the citizen. If the individual officer expects their civil liberties to be upheld, then they too must strive at all cost to uphold the civil liberties of others. These citizens empower us with great privilege. They are entrusting us with the authority to make ethical and just decisions on their behalf. We are servants of the people, and we must always strive to protect the civil liberties of the individual. This is the only way to ensure the integrity of our justice system. The roots behind the 4th amendment stem to writs of assistance that were provided by the English Parliament during Colonial America. They consisted of overreaching search warrants that lacked specificity and were extremely vague. This led to unjust search and seizure in the colonies, causing much contempt for the powers that be and distrust between society and law enforcement. When the justification behind what the police do in terms of search and seizure is diminished, so too will the relationship between law enforcement and the communities in which they serve. History should be noted as a stark reminder of this, and not go unnoticed.
References
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/4th-amendment.html
