| Welcome to Logical Politics. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Extent of the 4th Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 23 2006, 01:49 PM (254 Views) | |
| Derek | May 23 2006, 01:49 PM Post #1 |
|
Contributor
  ![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
I recently saw an article about an interesting questioning of the application of the 4th amendment. The circumstances are something like this: the police get a complaint about a loud party, go to investigate, nobody answers the door, so they circle around back and are able to see people fighting inside, at which time they enter the house to stop the fighting. Full article Lower courts found this in violation of the 4th amendment, because the officers didn't have a warrant, but the Supreme Court ruled that, since there was imminent danger to the people involved. This is a very delicate situation. On the one hand, nobody wants to see people get hurt unnecessarily. On the other hand, "the imminent threat of violence" is somewhat vague and could, in theory, be twisted to allow other things. What would have happened in this same scenario if the officers had found a couple very much into S&M instead of people fighting? Do they break in and take the whips and chains? What exactly is the imminent threat of violence? If a patrolling officer sees someone punch you lightly as a joke, it could be easy enough to misinterpret it; are they now allowed to break into that someone's house? In addition, what happens if the police stage such an incident? Say they suspect person 'A' of drug use, and bribe person 'B', an acquiantance of 'A', to visit 'A' and start a fight so that they can arrest 'A' while he has drugs in his system? Is this risk of corruption worth the safety it provides to the citizens? What happens if you just shake your fist at someone angrily? Is that justification to arrest you? You might never have thrown a punch. I think, in general, we might be safe if we require that the officers make legitimate attempts to get the peoples' attention and only intrude if it is clear that one of the people is in the process of committing some sort of violent crime. What do you think? |
| |
 |
 
|
| QuelThelos | May 25 2006, 09:29 PM Post #2 |
|
Contributor
|
These are all things that need to be determined on a case by case basis. If your driving down the road at night and the curtains are open and you see someone go through a table, It's a fairly safe assumption that person is in trouble. But two guys wrestling? not that big of a deal. I'd prefere nobody looking in my windows, but if a burgler broke a window and is aiming a gun at me, I hope someone investigates. Usually when I'm doing something I don't want them to see, I close my blinds. I recommend you do the same. |
| "In the democracy of the dead, all men at last are equal. There is neither rank nor station nor prerogative in the republic of the grave." -John James Ingalls | |
|
|
|
| Derek | May 25 2006, 10:18 PM Post #3 |
|
Contributor
|
Fair enough, but what if it's not so clear-cut? Wrestling in athletic gear on a mat is pretty obvious, but the difference between friendly wrestling in street clothes and on carpet (which I've done and don't recommend if you mind rug burns) might not look so different from grappling with an attacker. At that point, do we have the police err on the side of privacy and move on, do we have them stare in the window, etc. What happens if an accident during that sort of activity looks like intentional violence? Is there a clearly definable point where the invasion of privacy is justified by the safety afforded? If not, it's going to be very hard for the police officers to know if they're doing the right thing or not, and it would be unfortunate indeed to have lawsuits filed because of good intentions. |
| |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Political Debates · Next Topic » |
12:31 PM Jun 19