Blog by Sumana Harihareswara, Changeset founder
You Can't Violate the 4th Amendment On Television (Or Elsewhere)
Hi, reader. I wrote this in 2004 and it's now more than five years old. So it may be very out of date; the world, and I, have changed a lot since I wrote it! I'm keeping this up for historical archive purposes, but the me of today may 100% disagree with what I said then. I rarely edit posts after publishing them, but if I do, I usually leave a note in italics to mark the edit and the reason. If this post is particularly offensive or breaches someone's privacy, please contact me.
The wonderful Newsaic site footnotes TV shows and comics to contextualize references to law, history, and current events. My favorite bit so far comes from a discussion of an episode of "The Practice" and admissible evidence.
Remember that the exclusionary rule only applies to government action, not to actions by other individuals. If the woman had opened the closet door, that would not violate the Fourth Amendment. You as a private individual can never violate the Fourth Amendment; only the government can violate it... What this means for Batman, I'm not sure. If the courts see Batman as a private individual, then he can get evidence that the police cannot. But if the courts see Batman as a de facto agent of the police, as they probably should, then the same Fourth Amendment standards should apply to his actions. This may be the best reason why the police in DC Comics don't officially recognize Batman's existence and claim he is nothing more than an urban legend.The best sort of geekery!
Stephen Lee, the site author, also feels as I do about Daredevil's vigilantism.
