a) Suppose a 15 year old girl was kidnapped and buried alive in the woods. In a race against time to find her before she runs out of oxygen and dies the police interrogate the suspect without Miranda warnings in violation of his 5th Amendment rights. He reveals her location and she is saved. Strict interpretation of the 5th Amendment would mean that the victim is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and can't testify against the defendant. Would you agree with this? Would not strict interpretation therefore hinder the ability of the system to protect us? Is not the issue really how much of a hindrance in order to protect individual rights is reasonable? b) After 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed and in the eyes of many observers, infringes on the Bill of Rights. Was this justified? Was the threat of terror a sufficient danger (after all less than 3000 people died in 9/11 while over 30,000 die each year in traffic accidents)? And if it ever was, is it today, 12 1/2 years after 9/11.