In his work, the author has researched the institute of the state of emergency, which allows government bodies to temporarily limit constitutional norms and gives the possibility of legitimate restrictions on human rights and freedoms in order to maintain public order during crisis situations. Prima facie, the legitimacy of the measures and restrictions adopted is assumed until proven otherwise. The paper deals with the analysis of constitutional articles regulating states of emergency, as well as specific examples of their application in different countries, but also highlights the consequences of constitutional modifications that often include the expansion of executive powers and suspension of rights during a state of emergency, which can lead to the erosion of democratic institutions. Through a comparative analysis of the constitutional frameworks of different countries, including Croatia, France, Germany, and the United States, it shows that there are specific approaches to regulating the state of emergency in these countries. For example, Germany places a strong emphasis on parliamentary oversight of emergency measures, while the United States relies on broad executive powers that allow for quick responses to crisis situations. These differences illustrate how important it is to find a balance between security and the protection of civil liberties. The paper also analyzes historical and contemporary examples of the abuse of the state of emergency, where governments use crises as justification for increasing their own powers.