I read the whole article. No mention whatsoever of a search warrant and its contents nor a mention of the judge who might have issued it, if there was a search warrant. WTF? I am not anti-police but why some police think they can get away with this type of behavior is beyond me.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, no warrants are required for an "administrative search" of a regulated business-- for example, the Pharmacy Board can send an inspector into a drugstore during normal business hours to check that their records of painkiller prescriptions are up to date, and they don't need a warrant. The court in this case held that if the cops are going to come in with drawn guns and start handcuffing people, it's not an "administrative search" anymore and a warrant is needed.
In many cases, if you protest to much (or even sue afterwards), the local DA will trump up some charges, have you arrested and then offer to drop them or plea bargain to a misdemeanor fine if you agree to a release from liability.
Pure, criminal extortion.
Punishment for being uncooperative with bribes to inspectors. Welcome, Comrades.
And earlier article stated there was no warrant.
“I read the whole article. No mention whatsoever of a search warrant and its contents nor a mention of the judge who might have issued it, if there was a search warrant. WTF? “
You need to read the court’s opinion! It was a warrantless search. Under the FL law, the sheriff should not have even been involved. He is specifically excluded from being involved in these “license inspections.” These cops are going to be financially ruined, and that’s a good thing.
No mention whatsoever of a search warrant and its contents nor a mention of the judge who might have issued it, if there was a search warrant.
...
Perhaps the author is biased and is leaving out important information that would make the article complete. I would wait to hear both sides of the case before jumping to a conclusion.