According to the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, people have a right of security as far as their houses, persons, effects and papers are concerned. This is the security against any unreasonable seizures and searches; meaning that there should be no violation of such security as provided by the constitution, unless of course, there is a warrant which clearly specifies the reasons for which the search should be done, where it should be done, and lastly, the persons and the items or things that should be seized according to the warrant. The goal of this amendment, thus, is protection from governmental intrusion into people’s privacy rights by arbitrary searches and seizures.

According to the Privacy Doctrine made popular by the Griswold v Connecticut case of 1965, the state should not interfere on maters marital, as far as people’s bedrooms are concerned. In the case, the Court annulled statutes that prohibited people’s consumption as well as circulation of contraceptive tools. In this sense, the court cited the Fourth Amendment indicating that what couples do in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms should not be subject to search by the state. The privacy doctrine has extended to the debate on whether or not the constitution allows abortion; and whether women are free to do as they wish as far as their sexuality is concerned. This came forth in Roe v Wade.

The trespass doctrine extends the debate on whether the constitution needs to be changed to deal with issues about wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, without interfering with the rights of the people as far as privacy is concerned; as outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, while the privacy doctrine aims to uphold the Fourth Amendment as it is, the trespass doctrine seeks updates so that a balance is struck between the protection of societal rights and individual liberties to privacy.