Reference no: EM133834981

Question

Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 hit the city of New Orleans and a state of emergency was declared where police and National Guard troops operated in the area. This led to a disregard for the constitutional rights of local citizen. A state of emergency was declared in which allowed for increased security measures by law enforcement and National Guard deployment. Concerns about civil liberties started to rise due to reports that emerged of police and the National Guard using excessive force, conducting unlawful searches and seizures, and making arbitrary arrests in the chaotic post-hurricane environment. Due to the emergency situation, concerns arose about the lack of proper legal procedures (due process) during arrests and detentions, disregarding citizens' rights. This raised significant controversy about the response to the disaster and issues with how the government's handled the aftermath of the hurricane when crime concerns were at a rise.

The devastation caused by Katrina led to a breakdown with law and order, creating an environment where security forces faced immense challenges in maintaining control (Garamone, 2015). I don't necessarily think that Police and National Guard personnel handled their duties properly in this stressful event. There were many cases where these authorities forced their way into private residences to order the citizens to leave their homes, and did so with no probable cause and without power of warrant (Hutchinson, 2006). Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, citizens have the right to stay safe in their homes with no fear of intrusion by civil authorities without a warrant or probable cause. It seems that the Fourteenth Amendment in which applies to the due process clause to states actions were violated and the Fifth Amendment rights of citizens were violated as it goes against this amendment when there should be limited federal government actions regarding liberty and property rights and no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Hutchinson, 2006). In addition, they even confiscated legally owned firearms from citizens and from homes they forcibly and illegally entered. The mandatory evacuation order that was given did not give the police the right to forcibly evacuate someone from their property and confiscate firearms. If a person was in public then maybe the police had a right to evacuate someone if found outside their residences, but not with excessive forces. I don't think these actions were justified and necessary; however, I do agree that when there is a state of emergency then there should be limited constitutional rights but that doesn't mean going to the extent that you've seen happen after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. There are certain fundamental rights that the government should not break even if it provides procedural protections for state of emergencies.