#the prof didnt even bat an eye she was just pacing back and forth nodding her head

[myownprivatcidaho]

okay i'll bite what happened in govt class?

ALRIGHT so my govt professor is very. energetic and loves having an interactive class rather than a lecture so good for her on that.

basically she gave us a real life case in which a cop dug into the trash of a man named billy who was suspected of drug trade and presented it as evidence to the court. this raised the issue in court of whether or not this violated his fourth amendment right (law enforcement needs a specified written warrant before searching and/or seizing citizen property & and after a different case in the 60s, property illegally obtained cannot be presented before the court as evidence) because it was a gray space of whether or not it was his property.

we never did a mock trial before but in our classroom theres a courtroom setup at the back so 3 students put on honest to god robes and sat at the judge thing stand and then the classroom was split in two so thered be one side representing the state & arguing it was justified and a warrant wasnt needed vs the other representing billy and arguing that the 4th amendment was violated. so 3 more students from each side volunteered to represent whichever side they were assigned to. I was reluctant to volunteer cause. well who Wants that, but i could think up a couple good arguments in favor billy so i went ahead. (the prof gave out sheets that already had arguments that we could read off and mainly it would play out as a demonstration of how courts make decisions but the students COULD make their own arguments if they wanted)

so we sat down and basically went back and forth (like sitting up standing down saying shit like your honor etc etc) as to whether or not the cop who went dumpster diving violated the fourth amendment.

- basically one guy representing the state stood up and argued that it was no longer billys property so the cop didnt need a warrant

- i stood up and sounded confident for 2 seconds before my voice started shaking cause Anxiety but basically i began arguing that billy, as a taxpayer, was paying for the service of garbage disposal and therefore it was still a violation of the 4th amendment because it was still his property in that rite (even though 3 people volunteered for each side it quickly just ended up being one person arguing for an entire side so it was just me and the other guy).

- other guy stood up again and argued that since billy put the trash out to be collected (presumably out on a curb) it was no longer on his property, he was "getting rid of it," and therefore it wasnt his own. the people on the judge stand asked whose property it was then if billy "got rid of it" and state rep guy argued it was then private property of the garbage disposal service

- i stood up again and argued that it was still billys property and said the state rep guy needed to define "getting rid of [the trash]" because billy wasnt disowning it, it was his property that was to be sent off to a service that he as a taxpayer paid for - he payed for his residential property, cops would need a warrant to search his property. he payed for his possessions, cops would need a warrant to search his possessions. he payed for garbage disposal, cops need a warrant to search through trash that was being sent to said disposal. (prof said she liked this argument which was cool)

- after that tirade i was VERY shaky and then the judge (cause it was just one person representing the three on the judicial stand too lmao) asked if billy was supposedly innocent why did he feel the need to hide what was in his trash (important to note this question is NOT on topic and doesnt address the 4th amendment. in the irl case the people arguing no warrant was needed used sentiments to this effect & the fact that evidence WAS uncovered to argue that the cop was right to violate that right. more notably, this plays into the narrative that law enforcement can and should act based on perceived merit (seen often in copaganda - they follow gut instincts and perceptions and always always always just conveniently make the right call) and. we've all seen how that shit plays out in real life).

- i didnt SAY any of that though i knew it was getting off topic and into territory that would cause off-topic and intense arguing so i said "well thats really an individual case" and then i panicked too much and my mouth ran ahead of me and then "theres a LOT of reasons he might not want anyone to see that he could have TenFuckingCondomsInThereAtOnceAnd maybe thats all there is to it!"

- that. kinda shot down further questioning cause the judges and. everyone else was laughing, myself VERY much included and i couldnt even LOOK at the judges cause we were all honest to god laughing

- basically the judges ruled in favor of billy which the prof said happened the first time this entire week which was cool

- and yeah