The Instigator
Mooskas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jobes2007
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The U.S. Gov't should decrease its authority to search w/o probable cause.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,098 times Debate No: 354
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Mooskas

Pro

Say that a man stole my wallet. I don't see his face and I lose him in a crowd for a while. A short while later I see the man with my wallet and I follow him back to his house. I am 99.9% certain that he is holding my wallet and that it is in fact the same man who stole it from me. Should I then be required to wait for a warrant to enter his property and retreive my wallet? Or should I be able to use the confidence I have in thinking I have found the theif and have what is rightfully mine returned to me? If it is not my wallet it is a harmless misunderstanding. If it is my wallet I have caught the thief without allowing him time to cover up his crime.
jobes2007

Con

I'm sorry, if I misunderstood what your saying there, but are you honestly stating that people should have more of a right to search? If everyone could search anybody's house they wanted to how would our society even work?
"Oh, I thought you were the guy that stole my wallet, that's why I broke into your house and tore it apart?"

First off, how do you suggest you get in the house in the first place? The only two ways I could think of would be break a window and climb on in, or of course knock on the door and say you want to search there house. If someone knocked on your door RIGHT NOW and said that you looked like the guy that stole your wallet and stole their wallet what would you do? Let them in? What happened to privacy?

Being able to search without probable cause would be one of the stupidest things we could do as Americans.
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mooskas 9 years ago
Mooskas
And now I just realize how incorrectly I stated almost everything now that I see how I stated the issue at hand. Sorry for the waste of time.
Posted by Mooskas 9 years ago
Mooskas
Yes I presented my argument very incorrectly. I meant to argue that a government official should have the right to enter, if they have a legit reason, with without waiting to obtain a warrant. I just used the story to present a better-safe-than-sorry point of view. Thank you for your input.
Posted by supremecourt101 9 years ago
supremecourt101
Sorry, but you are both wrong. A regular civilian isn't prevented from going up to someone's door and knocking and asking for the wallet. Warrants only effect police and government officials. However, even with a search warrant, you still cannot break into someone's house. The police must go up and knock on the door to enter, unless the person refuses to let them enter. So really, the topic of this debate didn't fit the arguments. A person's right to confront somebody they suspect to be a criminal isn't directly related to the gov't's right.
Posted by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
Under the principles of tort law, the "hot pursuit" doctrine would allow you to take any reasonable efforts to reclaim your unfairly procured property from another individual. It depends greatly upon the circumstances, because it is a very fact-specific determination, but breaking into his property to retrieve your wallet would probably not be covered under your hypothetical. Furthermore, it is the state that must follow the warrant requirements, not private individuals.
Posted by Mooskas 9 years ago
Mooskas
You're right. I should have established that an officer has the right to go in without having to wait to obtain a warrant. I tried too hard to make it a more relatable argument. And I stated probable cause, it is not without probable cause. It would make it easier so that as soon as something is found it can be worked with at that given moment. My point is that allowing too much time allows what is found to be lost, rather, to get lost. But I was really only wondering opinion rather than winning my argument, so thank you.
Posted by jobes2007 9 years ago
jobes2007
"If someone knocked on your door RIGHT NOW and said that you looked like the guy that stole your wallet and stole their wallet what would you do?" that should be read without the "stole your wallet and".

Sorry.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
Mooskasjobes2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nrw 9 years ago
nrw
Mooskasjobes2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by supremecourt101 9 years ago
supremecourt101
Mooskasjobes2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by The_Silent_Consensus 9 years ago
The_Silent_Consensus
Mooskasjobes2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jobes2007 9 years ago
jobes2007
Mooskasjobes2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03