Can police enter a dwelling to intervene in a suicide attempt in a state where suicide is not a crime? I have often heard claims that the reason suicide (and attempted suicide) is criminalized (at common law, if not statutorily) in some states is that it allows law enforcement personnel to enter a residence if they have reason to believe a person is or has attempted to commit suicide - it grants them probable cause, since suicide is a crime. That is, the idea is that suicide laws are on the books not for the sake of prosecuting suicidal people, but rather for legitimizing interventions by law enforcement. Does this mean, then, that in states that do not recognize suicide as a crime at common law, a police officer cannot enter a dwelling if they have "probable cause" to believe that a person currently is or soon will attempt to commit suicide (but not genuine probable cause for any other reason)? I would have thought that police have some level of carte blanche to intervene in situations like this (which, if it were the case, would mean that it doesn't matter whether or not a state has laws against suicide), but I'm no lawyer. (This question is about regular-old people-killing-themselves suicide, not euthanasia or other forms of assisted suicide, which I recognize is a whole different ball of wax.)
I am assuming, for the purpose of this answer, that you are talking about actual (attempted) suicide - rather than (physician or associate) assisted suicide. With regard to the U.S., various states at one time or another did have the act of attempted-suicide listed as a crime; some even as a felony, although I cannot find a single case of actual prosecution (of attempted - obviously you cannot enforce a law against actual suicide since the actor would be deceased). With that said, currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in any state in the United States. I did a full Lexis search. Suicide (attempted suicide) is considered a mental health issue rather than a criminal one; hence, a person who is thought to be suicidal is subject to well being checks by fire, police, social services, and other like entities/people and are also subject to civil commitment and mental health holds if they are thought/found to be a danger to themselves or others. To that end, the reason police can enter a dwelling without a warrant under these circumstances, is to do a well being check. If they have a reasonable suspicion that someone may be attempting to kill themselves (a family member, friend or a neighbor calls and says they believe you're are in eminent danger of harming yourself), the police may enter the premises and bring them to a hospital, even against there will. They can be held (at a hospital) to determine if they are of "sound mind". Every state has some form of civil commitment (statutes) and some limited amount of time a person can be held for observation (again, at a hospital or treatment facility). I do not believe this is a typical ruse used by the police to enter premises without a warrant. Why? Not because all police are above skirting the laws against warrantless searches; however, there are just much easier means to accomplishing that end, if that is what they are going to do. Yes, if evidence of a crime is in plain view while the police enter for a well being check (or any other legitimate reason), the individual can be charged with that crime. However, most police officers are not going to charge someone if they see (a usable amount of) drugs, paraphernalia, or evidence of some other low level crime. This is true since (1) they are already in crisis and (2) they are there for the very reason that they have information they may not be of sound mind, hence potentially not criminally responsible. If they walk into a meth lab or a murder scene or some other serious criminal scene, ...well that is different and all bets are off. The bottom line is while this may have happened somewhere sometime to someone....this is not a practice I would be worried about.
There is a general defence to any crime called self defense. If you commit a crime, but the reason you commit it is because you are acting in self defense, or the defense of another, then you will not be found guilty of that crime. For example, if you kill someone, but the court believes you are acting in self defense, then you will not be found guilty of murder (or manslaughter). This defense extends to other crimes too, and trespassing would be included in this. Acting in the defense of another person has the same effect as acting in self defense. Just note that you would have to prove that it was reasonable for you to be acting in the way you did. Usually this means that the crime you committed was proportional or necessary to prevent the crime that would have occurred, and if self defense is involved, that it was necessary to do what you had to do to prevent harm to you or another.
No Law enforcement are allowed to use “reasonable force” to effect an arrest. They are also allowed to use reasonable force to prevent imminent harm to people or property. As described, the felon is not a danger to other people or property and a drone strike would be an ineffective means of effecting an arrest. The force used is not reasonable. Nor can the drone be used as a means of lawfully carrying out the sentence. An execution in the USA is a highly formalised legal process and must be done strictly in accordance with the law to ensure it is not &quot;cruel and unusual&quot;. Blowing people up with high explosives which may or may not kill them is not an authorized method of legal execution.
It isn't clear that the example you give is illegal police action, but let's assume that it is for the sake of this question, since it doesn't affect the analysis. If possession is not compelled, then it is voluntary.
The question is oddly phrased: The law does not give allowances for its violation. Many laws have exceptions. E.g., the law against killing endangered animals contains an exception for defensive killings. Perhaps you are thinking of safe harbors? For example, there are general provisions in the law like "exigent circumstances" that allow police to proceed with actions that, absent those provisions, would constitute violations of law. "Permission" to violate a right can be granted explicitly in the form of a warrant, which allows law enforcement to "violate" specific property and freedom rights. Finally, one might consider an executive pardon or jury-nullification to be ex post "permission to break the law."
Doing nothing is legally safer than doing something, but you're not without hope if you pull the lever. Although you'll likely have committed murder or at least manslaughter, case law is littered with lenience in exigent circumstances, even where convictions have been affirmed. Because this is a philosophical problem, there are plenty of opinions from that perspective, but not so many from a legal standpoint. Let's assume that you're an innocent bystander, (not an employee of the railway company or the train company, etc) and have no duty to act. If you do nothing, then it is unlikely that you would be charged with a crime - you had no duty to fulfill, and therefore not negligent. There's little doubt that not pulling the lever is the safer option. More interesting is when you choose to pull the lever - then it's probable that you would have charges of murder, or at least manslaughter, brought against you by the state. What defenses does the law offer? Let's assume that you are aware that pulling the lever will kill a person. The primary defence is a legal principle of necessity: where your criminal actions are not protected or excluded by some other statute or principle, the fact that you were obliged to take this action in order to prevent some greater harm may safeguard you from penalties. There are certain elements of necessity: That you did not create the danger that caused you to commit the crime; That you ceased the criminal activity as soon as practicably possible; That you had no reasonable alternative; and The harm that you prevented was greater than the harm that you caused. I see such a defense only possibly falling over on (4), where the prevented and caused harm, in the case of human lives, are inherently very subjective. Unfortunately, each state has different rulings regarding the threshold for evidence of this defense. One of the most famous cases where necessity was attempted as a defense to murder, with remarkable parallels to this hypothetical, is that of R v Dudley and Stephens: A crew of four found themselves on a lifeboat at sea with no food and no water, and with no prospect of rescue. One of them was a child (Parker) and was nearing death and unconscious. Two of them (Dudley and Stephens), after some discussion over drawing lots, decided that the child would be killed before his natural death, in order that his blood be better preserved for drinking. The last crew member, Brooks, was silent on the matter. After killing Parker, Dudley, Stephens and Brooks fed on Parker's body. During the trial, the matter of necessity as a defense to murder was considered. The judges found that there was no common law defence of necessity to murder, and Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to death with a recommendation for mercy. The Home Secretary commuted their sentences to six months' imprisonment. This case concerns essentially the choice you're making in the trolley problem: either the four crew members were going to die, or one of them would definitely die and the others might live. It's easy to say that they should have just waited, but they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. It's also a great example of a situation where although the law says one thing, it doesn't align with our morals and ethics, and while it's a UK case, I would wager that almost every lawyer in common law countries would have heard about it.
I feel that a person, not the subject of arrest, should be protected by the 4th amendment if they choose to remain in their vehicle, even if “ordered” to exit the vehicle by an officer. The intuition is fine, but is basically incorrect. I’m most interested to know: How would a driver (1) Politely (2) determine if a given instruction to exit the vehicle must be complied with, and (3) decline the instruction without giving the officer “cause” or otherwise damaging a potential case? From a practical perspective the only workable response is to comply. There are times when this is done without a reasonable suspicion (or in some cases probable cause) or other legal basis, but it is pretty much impossible for you to dispute this one the spot. Most of the time, the officer will have the legal authority to order you to leave the vehicle. If they order you to exit the vehicle despite not having the legal authority to do so, the right course of action is to comply and then to file a complaint with the agency employing the officer or to bring a civil lawsuit against the officer. There are good answers to a basically duplicate question at How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
The answer by @Digital fire is not always correct. Some states have passed general-purpose "duty to rescue" statutes. The one I've been trained about is Vermont's (Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 519) § 519. Emergency medical care (a) A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or herself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others. The statue goes on to provide good Samaritan protection and state the penalty for violating the statute: a fine of not more than $100. Digital Fire does refer to the Wikipedia article about a duty to act/rescue, but the lead of that article says it is referring to torts, that is, whether the person who wasn't assisted (or his/her estate) could bring a lawsuit against the person who didn't help. But the Vermont statute creates an offense with which the suspect could be charged in a criminal trial.