I feel it matters whether the complainant has been subjected to the spell “Know Alignment” which has a personal effect and must be directed upon a target. The ability to “detect evil” is not based on a specific target, but is merely an enhancement of the ability of the paladin to perceive. It is not reasonable to enjoin the paladin from looking at someone he suspects is evil, but it is also not reasonable to decide that that perception qualifies as reasonable grounds to suspect a specific violation of law, which, in this case is entirely the basis of the paladins jurisdiction for any further action.
Is there not a line of cases that hold that a drug sniffing dog may check out a vehicle during a traffic stop without violating the 4th amendment? There must still be probable cause to support the traffic stop, but once it’s made the dog can be used? It could be argued that a Paladin is like a dog, smelling evil instead of ganja…
Admissability of the results of a Detect Evil or Know Alignment Spell is controverial. What proof is there that this spell is reliable? The Courts are well aware of the dangers of character evidence, and place restrictions upon its use. There are accounts of various counter magics that can be employed, and there is also some room for variation in the definition of evil. A priest of Iuz may consider a Paladin of St. Cuthbert the embodiement of all evil…
Of course, if the Paladin is not an agent of the state, the pleadings may need to be amended to include claims for unlawful detention, trespass to chattels, assault, battery, etc…
Is it possible (having just gone over this in Crim Pro) to analogize the Paladin’s ability to detect evil to the ability of a dog to sniff out drugs?
It can be argued that the Paladin’s status as a law enforcement officer, coupled with his (class-granted) ability to sens the evil emanating from someone, creates a sui generis ability or perception.
Merely allowing the Paladin to walk by someone and look upon him, sensing his emanations, as it were, might still violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the necessities of law and order do render such searches viable under certain circumstances, such as airports.
While I don’t know what kind of a crime “weakening the fabric of the universe” would be, but it would seem pretty serious.
As far as violations of church and state go, I think that should be the purpose of a different thread. if there are no objections, or active suggestions, I will begin it.
But the purpose of the analogy was to argue the use of a similar extraordinary method of detection on a person’s body. If such detection is unconstitutional for someone’s home, then it seems likely to be found equally unconstitutional for use on someone’s person. The applicability of the method on items found in public lands is irrelevent.
But the Paladin can Detect Evil in an area. If that area is public, is that an invasion of privacy? Are drug/explosive sniffing dogs in airports/bus stations an invasion of privacy?
No, but possession of drugs is itself a crime, while being Evil is not. This is the point I, as a layman, cannot get past.
If someone were suspected of child molestation, a search warrant were obtained, and fully legal materials that point to a pedophilic orientation were discovered, such as pornographic stories or drawings involving children, would they be admissible as evidence?
A vicious crime is found. Maybe a sacrificed victim near a demon-summoning pentagram.
The perp is not known, but it’s suspected the perp fled to a nearby church and is blending in with the population there.
The paladin goes to the church and detects evil. Of the 100 people in the church, 30 show up as evil; 3 show up as moderately evil; one shows up as extraordinarily evil.
The paladin arrests the three moderately evil people and one extraordinarily evil person for further questioning.
Assuming the paladin has police powers, were her actions constitutional?
Almost certainly. There are a number of rationales for this, some of which are solidly grounded in evidentiary law and some of which are, quite frankly, the products of a bygone age. Example of the latter: I have seen similar material admitted as proof of the defendant’s “lustful disposition,” which was considered relevant to his propensity to commit the crime charged.
I would say no. An arrest must be predicated upon probable cause. Probable cause exists when a reasonably prudent man in possession of all the information known to the arresting officer could reasonably believe that it’s likely a crime was committed by the person being arrested.
I would say, however, that the information in your hypothetical would justify an investigatory detention – a brief detainment for further inquiry. Such detentions can be predicated upon “reasonable, articulable suspision,” a standard lower than probable cause, but higher than mere unparticularized suspicion.
During arguments at the trial it was established that, based on the best available knowledge, destruction of all five gates would lead to the destruction of the world. The defendants did not dispute this fact claim, nor dispute the implication that destruction of one of the gates was therefore a serious matter.
It sounds as if the problem is that I used the word “arrests” in step 4 (“The paladin arrests the three moderately evil people and one extraordinarily evil person for further questioning”) instead of using “detains.” Is this correct? That is, if the paladin detained all four people, would that be constitutional? (I don’t mean any snark at all in the question, in case it appears that there is any; I’m honestly not clear on the proper terminology).
Easy case. Though I think it would be better understood as an Equal Protection case.
Detect Evil, if I understand the notion of alignment correctly, detects only the moral disposition (Good/Evil) of the person, which is completely unrelated to the criminality (Lawful/Chaotic) of the person. For the purposes of law enforcement, the Good/Evil nature of a person should have no bearing on whether they can be arrested.
Whether or not the search is reasonable, the use to which that search is put is certainly not. Arresting someone as a potential lawbreaker just because of an Evil disposition is arbitrary discrimination. Assuming Rational Basis analysis applies here, I’d ask the court “What rational basis does the government have in treating Good people different from Evil, if there is no external manifestation in terms of lawbreaking or conduct that would have an impact on society?”