Back in the 1970's the Supreme Court tackled in the case of Roe v. Wade the issues of pregnancy and even abortion as private matters (Chaiten, 2004). Today, however, the shift is on making the aspects of private realm as pertinent concerns of the state, especially when it comes to the issue of public safety.
In the case of People v. Samson, the court ruled upon the rights of a parolee. The facts of the case focus on the encounter between the parolee and a police officer. It was September 6, 2002 police officer Alex Rohleder, while patrolling, saw and recognized the parolee Donald Curtis Samson whom he heard from his colleagues as having 'a parolee at large warrant.' Rohleder approached and inquired. Samson declared that he was then 'in good standing with his parole agent.' All the same, police officer Rohleder decided to conduct a search and justified the said search by claiming that as a parolee, there is a need to make sure that Samson obeys the laws and rules. It is a mere privilege that Samson has been set out of prison and he will be discharged Samson if he has 'nothing illegal.' There is actually a condition on Samson's parole that grants any officer the right to search at any time whether or not there is a warrant. This is a valid condition and it is implemented to all parolees in the State of California. The police officer found cigarette box and discovered a plastic bag with methamphetamine. Samson was arrested. Samson filed a motion to suppress evidence, but this was denied. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed the validity of the parole search.
There are some situations and events that people undergo at present that are claimed to justify the interference of the state into what used to be purely private matters. This can be attributed to the onset of globalization and the too many changes it has brought to the society. It is a fact that most of the crimes committed today are those that goes beyond what the public can right away see. Some people are molested, harmed and harassed, even if there is no physical contact because of the internet and computer technology. Also, the terrorism that the whole world was able to witness in September 11, 2001 has left many people constantly paranoid of their safety in the public and in their homes. Evidently, these events called for the sudden reshaping of state laws and policies. These also prompted the need to shift paradigms and for the state to pry into the private realm to reveal any bad intent that may cause damage to the public.
To many people, the question still remains. Who shall delineate the line on what remains private and what is public when the need arises Who shall say that the government can intervene in most private decisions an individual or household shall make (Chaiten, 2004) How shall every private individual be assured that the rule of law will constantly be implemented and that the inquiry into the public realm is justified This cannot go unresolved as people have witnessed how tendency to abuses and prejudices can harm a small number of people out there.
The State is inviolable. Its general principles lie in serving the people that constitute it. Yet, it remains as a mere legal concept. Its