We need not look far to find tragic real world examples. In such circumstances, officers may end up deviating unforeseeably from the usual rules, confounding the capacity of pedestrians and motorists to comprehend the scope of state power and the quality of individual rights. Street encounters are fast-moving and understandably unpredictable. This troubling state of affairs arises most often in the context of order-maintenance policing. The individual is left unfairly surprised-unable to plan a law-abiding life consistent with the promise of the legality principle. In this way, meaningful understanding works to excuse unexpected coercion. The officer enjoys a piecemeal exception that the individual experiences as a piecemeal (and often unanticipated) burden. The enterprise is admirable, but there is a dark side: a judge cannot understand meaningfully a reasonable officer in his particular situation without concurrently tolerating an otherwise impermissible intrusion upon autonomy. I coin the term "meaningful understanding" to describe the functional Fourth Amendment methodology by which courts sometimes accommodate law-enforcement needs, fears, and even mistakes. This Article uses Fourth Amendment doctrine to examine that asymmetry. As a matter of practice, these exceptions tend to operate asymmetrically-benefiting the state only. But, under pressing conditions, the prevailing rules may prove too rigid, compelling courts to carve outpost hoc exceptions. Thus, the Constitution commands that legal officials honor formal terms of engagement and limit enforcement efforts to narrowly defined crimes. If precise rules are not prescribed in advance, individuals may lack notice of what is prohibited and may be subjected to arbitrary treatment.
#Tom anderson guitars 03 07 93a translucent black free#
The objective of the legality principle is to promote autonomy by providing individuals with opportunities to plan courses of conduct free from state intrusion.
0 kommentar(er)
