Matt's opinion

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Something to think about

First off, I think it's ironic that my first post on this website after withdrawing is next to the post where I declare NU as the greatest school. More details on my withdrawal can be found on my Myspace page, along with other details about my personal life. From now on, I'd like to specifically dedicate this site to opinion and commentary on issues that are far more important that any single person.

In an effort to start a conversation, or at least to get whoever reads this to think for a moment, I'm posting a link to an article I came across today on The article describes how police in Texas believe that a bullet lodged in a young man's head is evidence that the man was involved in an armed robbery. A judge in Texas has issued a search warrant allowing the state to remove the bullet and use it as evidence against him. The question is whether this action by the state is constitutional?

Can the state subdue a person into having unwanted surgery to produce evidence against the person whose has the evidence inside of them? My answer is no. I think that compelling a person to undergo any surgical procedures in order to collect evidence is out of line. Unless the object the police desire to present as evidence will pass through the body naturally (like if the man swallowed the bullet and will poop it out) then the police are just out of luck. If the entire case against this man is based solely on the evidence that is freakishly inside of him then it's not much of a case to begin with.

What precedent will this set? I sincerely doubt this interpretation will motivate criminals to go out and try to implant evidence in their bodies to try protect themselves from prosecution. Although it would be interesting to see a guy walking down the street with a crowbar or a revolver sticking out of his stomach or arm.

Here's the article


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home