Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
|
I don't understand the relevance of the case to the topic.
If anything, this case illustrates his faulty logic.
I'd always rather someone with bulletproof logic over someone ideologically close to me--especially operating as a judge at any level.
"Kozinski wrote that in many breaking-and-entering situations, police may not know who is in the home or if there is a risk of violence, so they may respond with appropriate force.
In this case, though, the vigilant neighbor said it was the ex-wife, raising the possibility she was there with permission, or that she had gained possession of the home. The police could have knocked on the door and asked her why she was there, called the ex-husband, checked the neighbor's account of the restraining order, or obtained a warrant."
The police can only enter if they think there is a problem.
The problem was that a woman, an ex-wife, was on the premise despite a restraining order preventing her from legally being there.
If the police were to believe the neighbor's story, and from their response it appears they chose to, then it follows they could not think that Frunz was there with permission.
I'm not disputing what the police could or should have done. But to reason that a person is lawfully in a home simply on the basis of being an "ex-wife", specifically an ex-wife under a restraining order, is faulty logic.