Tow #9: When Police Enter a Home

This editorial was about whether or not police are allowed to enter a home without a warrant, but with consent of the owner. It talks about the privacy of the home being the most important and police really should obtain a warrant.

This editorial was posted on behalf of a case in 2009, when police entered Walter Fernandez's home with the consent of his girlfriend. They found a shotgun, ammunition and a knife that Walter used in a robbery. This was evidence enough to arrest him. Walter appealed because he claimed that this was unreasonable unwarranted search. Well the purpose of this editorial was to show that when police search your home, they will most likely have a warrant with cause.

This editorial was written for people who object searches of their home when they know they are guilty of something. It was composed by the Editorial Board of the New York Times and it is highly credible because the Editorial Board is a group of many journalists who study various topics. Plus, this editorial had a lot of facts.

Facts was one of the rhetorical strategies this editorial used. Starting out this editorial, a reference to the 4th amendment was made and it automatically established ethos. Listing facts and providing evidence for this crime that was committed really provided a lot of evidence and established great ethos. Rhetorical questions such as ," But what if the police lawfully arrest the objecting tenant and remove him from the home may they enter then?" Helped appeal to the logic of the audience causing them to think on the subject of the matter.

I think that the authors briefly achieved their purpose by providing evidence,

but I feel as if they could have included more examples to show that most often of the times then not, the police have a warrant plus a reason to search a home.