The Responsibility of The Government in Ensuring The Citizens’ Protection

Administrative justification involves the critical consideration where the government has legal authority to occasionally conduct searches in circumstances other than criminal investigations; there exists a standard for administrative search, which has been effectively highlighted within the United States legal framework. The searches are warranted in different environment where the government plays its role of ensuring that the lives of its citizens are not compromised. It is the responsibility of the government to protect individuals from any risky or dangerous situation under which, there is a greater need for overall wellbeing (Worrall, 2014).

The searches can be conducted to ensure individual safety in circumstances such as sobriety checkpoints, which are set up for the main purpose of apprehending drunk drivers who are violating traffic rules. These searches are also referred to, as regulatory searches where there is need to achieve a certain end based on the provisions under which the searches are warranted. The overall understanding under which it is possible to develop a clear understanding within a given environment are aimed at ensuring that there is high level of compliance. It is the duty of the government to implement better polices which are significantly tasked with improving the overall operational environment where the number of lawbreakers are apprehended before a disaster happens (Simon, 2013).

Administrative justification is linked with protecting individual and public interests; it follows implementation aspects that are put in place within a social context regarding a certain aspect, which is crucial in promoting the wellbeing. The searches are organized mainly to create a better environment under which successful implementation of developed policies and the purpose of these searches are not to make arrests but ensure high level of compliance where the interests of the public and individuals can be significantly upheld. Therefore, the application of administrative justification policy is a positive move that has focused on creating an improved environment under which it would be possible to manage certain risky situations (Worrall, 2014).

Administrative justification is highly applicable to individual and vehicle inventory aspects. Vehicle inventories puts into consideration the inventories that are taken after arrest in order to develop a significant record on items that have been taken into custody. This consideration is aimed to improve on accountability aspect on the part of the business entity as well as improving the overall focus on administrative justification. A critical case that can help understand this case is the South Dakota v Opperman where the respondents in the case Opperman had his vehicle impounded without warrant and the police in their inventory asserted that the contents in the vehicle included marijuana. A key issue within the case was to determine whether police are allowed to inventory a vehicle that is lawfully impounded for traffic violation based on administrative justification. The court ruled against the respondent where it ruled that impounded vehicles could be inventoried where a process is undertaken to secure the vehicle and the contents (Worrall, 2014).

Person inventories focuses on developing a greater understanding on personal belongings where justification includes protection of the suspect’s property, security and identification of a suspect. A key case that highlights personal inventories based on administrative justification understanding is the Illinois v. Lafayette case. In this case, Lafayette was arrested where his bag was searched as part of inventory of his belongings. Drugs were found in a cigarette package. The issue that was being investigated in the case was whether the actions of the police were consistent with the fourth amendment provision to search the personal effects of a suspect as part of administrative procedure. The court gave a decision that the justification of the searches does not have any inclination on probable cause, thus the absence of warrant does not influence the outcome, and thus the actions of the police officer were consistent with the fourth amendment (Chao, 2015).