the right to be let alone. This right has not been well protected. It has not been paid much attention to. But today, faced with frightening population explosion, where the relationships between individuals are becoming more acute, if ever privacy has had any sacredness, it should be so considered now and the fact firmly established. What we do in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years will in all probability jell those rights to such an extent that future genera tions will be stuck with the end product of our work. This is a period in which many things are happening rapidly. Forces are coming into conflict with one another. Laws and rules and regulations are being evolved from this conflict caused by the tremendous increase in our population. Now, if we don't work out intelligent, practical rules which protect the right of privacy of individuals, pretty soon it will be too late.

Now what is the right of privacy? Well, the constitution, the United States Constitution specifically the Fourth Amendment, which has been part of the document since just after its ratification and one of the original Ten Amendments -states the right of the people to be secure as to their persons and as to their houses and personal papers and effects against unreasonable and please note the word unreasonable against unreasonable search and seizure, and that no warrant shall issue except with good cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or places to be searched or seized. At first reading, it may sound like the police have to have a warrant before they can come in anywhere. But there is the word "unreasonable," and the courts have said that the police may not be making an unreasonable search or seizure if it is to prevent a felony or other offense from being committed. So the police

one

go in without a warrant. The Federal and California Constitutions say the same thing. And it took 150 years for it to mean anything. The police used to go in and make an illegal search of the premises, breaking down a door or going in a window to do whatever they wanted. Then they would go blithely into court with the illegally acquired evidence. The defense counsel would object, and the court would say that it was too bad but your remedy should be against the police officer for trespassing. And we all know what the success of such an approach would be. So as a practical matter the people did not have this right. Finally the United States Supreme Court decided a few years ago that illegally acquired evidence should not be presented in Federal Court. This, of course, applied to Federal Courts and their jurisdiction only. Some states have in their constitutions the search and seizure provision, but not all. As a practical matter citizens of many states were still deprived of this particular constitutional right. In 1955, came the case about which most Californians have heard, people vs. Cahan. Mr. Cahan was a suspected bookmaker. The police illegally entered his place and planted some microphones. As a result of what they heard over the microphones they concluded he was a bookmaker. His counsel was wise enough to realize that the Federal protections should apply to the states also, and he took it up to the California Supreme Court where, in a momentous decision, suddenly Article 1, Section 19, of our constitution, the unreasonable search and seizure section, took on some teeth, and the state courts were no longer able to use illegally acquired evidence.

Now, as I have said, progress in these areas is usually at a slow crawl. The courts often see their way clear in a moment of enlightenment to do what they should have done long be-

6