I’ve had seizures since my 7th grade year. I fell down from my bed in the middle of the night and hit my head on the edge of my drawer. After I hit my head, I had another impact on the floor. there was a loud thud and my parents rushed to my room only to find me on the floor seizing. My parents immediately called 9-1-1 and asked for help. If my parents had not been there I don’t know what would had have happened to me. I most likely would have stopped seizing after a while and after I awakened, I would have been very confused and would have had a big headache. I would, in a sense be okay, but I wouldn’t know if anything was wrong with my health or even more important, my brain. I would have not received the medication I would’ve needed to protect me from future seizures, therefore, I would have probably had another seizure not so far into the future since the first one happened. Hypothetically,if I had been alone in my house and a policeman heard the thud from the floor, and allowed his curiosity to guide him into my house respectively to figure out what or from where the thud came from, I would hope he would do something in order to help me and find out what may have cause the fall. I would question the policeman and ask him why he decided to come into my house. Even though a policeman was who helped me, I would still be suspicious if he did anything more than just help me. He may have come into my house to help me in my time of need but how would he have known that I was alone at my house? Government officials seem to sometimes take the Fourth Amendment rather broad with the actions that they take. The Fourth Amendment states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. Const., amend. IV.). In Mincey v. Arizona, some policemen raided an apartment with a lot of narcotics in possession. While the policemen were raiding the apartment, an undercover cop was shot and killed, and the owner of the apartment was wounded. Narcotic officials arrived on the scene and told the officers not to do any investigation at that time. Shortly after that, the homicide detectives arrived at the scene and took over the investigation and searched the apartment for four consecutive days without a warrant. Many things were taken from the apartment without consent of the petitioner. It is believed more than 300 things were taken throughout the four day. On the night of the raid, one of the detectives went to the hospital, where the petitioner was sent and started to interrogate him even though he was barely conscious. The petitioner asked not to be interrogated until he had a lawyer with him but the detective ignored his request and kept on interrogating him. The Petitioner was convicted with murder, assault, and narcotic offenses. Some people agree with the decision that was made and others do not agree. During the trial, “the Court indicated that officers may enter and search without a warrant upon reasonable belief that there is a ‘need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury” (Landynski). If the officers waited to get a warrant, the petitioner would have probably died. Others believe the opposite and some “Justices unanimously upbraided an Arizona state Court for permitting warrantless searches of homicide crime scenes” (Bellin). Even though a crime was being committed and the detectives needed evidence, to take so many things from the apartment without “permission” should not be allowed. Should government officials be allowed to intervene with events without a warrant? Is the case Mincey v. Arizona justice? Justice can be seen and translated in many different ways. In fact, most people do view Justice in different perspectives. To view