Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
A society is judge by its treatment of its weakest and most vulnerable members.
If the police had no warrant saying they could go in or search Joe's house then the police could be in a certain amount of trouble as well seeing as Joe did not willingly let them in and they never had a warrant but Joe could be in a lot more trouble for being in the possession of drugs.
And smart homes should be more advanced to these kinds of things because they could have been fake cops, plus they had no warrant which leaves everyone in this situation at fault especially Joe for being in the possession of drugs and the possible false 911 call influenced on drugs either making him see things or think things, maybe even both.
