“Funny how I’m playing both sides of the issue via two different threads, and getting criticized each way. Not satisfying anyone.”
I call that “kicking the tires” of an issue. I too am concerned about the safety of police. While I believe that their safety should at times be compromised for our freedom, I’m not a monster. I want to keep needless deaths down to a minimum.
If you were the “warrant czar” for a day, able to create laws regardless of the Constitution, appointed by the people to do it through popular demand, how would you resolve this?
“kicking the tires” - great term.
As warrant czar, I’d recognize that some crimes require immediate action to preserve evidence or prevent further harm. In those cases, the police MUST get a warrant, based on pre-entry information, within 24 hours - else the case would be treated as though no warrant had been issued (well, it hasn’t) with the standard consequences thereof. The kicker is that the cops MUST be right in their decision, else suffer due punishment. Just because some act is allowed doesn’t mean leniency if you screw it up.
In conjunction, laws under which urgent searches are retroactively warranted should be subject to review. In the case at hand, I agree the search should be allowed (presuming a judge issued a retroactive warrant promptly thereafter) as a matter of reasonable execution of law, BUT I hold that the law criminalizing the activity being investigated is unconstitutional. Sometimes it is sensible to do X in light of Y, but that X came up at all indicates Y is suspect.
As for obvious questions of abuse of privilege, I find karma is a bitch. Obviously abuse should be punishable, obviously those in power will abuse their power and further abuse power to prevent punishment for that initial abuse, and eventually it all piles up and backfires badly. Burst into someone’s home without a warrant immediately obvious, and you risk terminal perforation - regardless of the Indiana verdict of late.
That never requires a warrant. Never did require a warrent. Never will require a warrant.
It is difficult to believe there are people who imagine the cops have to stand by waiting on a warrant to assist someone who has invited them in to help her.
Somebody smokes some heavy stuff to come up with that take on the deal.