“husband went over to her place (he’d left) and blocked the officer’s entry to the place.”
Blocking entry of an illegal search [if it was in fact illegel] doesn’t harm anyone. But if it wasn’t his property, and no one asked him for help [right?], then it’s not so clear.
Did his wife set him up or something? Why did he try to stop the police? I tried google and dogpile — haven’t found any html article yet.
It’s all laid out in the opinion. As I recall...
His wife called 911 because he was throwing stuff around. He hadn’t actually hit her.
When the police officer arrived, he said he was leaving (she was throwing him out) and that the officer wasn’t needed. But when the wife went back inside, the husband went to the doorway and blocked the officer from entering while the wife was telling him to let the officer in.
There was a scuffle and the guy tried to get jury instructions entered about blocking illegal entry. These were denied and the guy appealed. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the case didn’t really have to go into the illegal entry arena because it was conceded as likely legal entry even in dissenting opinion.
It wasn't a "search"...it was responding to a victim's call.
Second, "doesn't harm anyone"? So these loonies talking about shooting officers just because they believe an entry is illegal doesn't hurt anyone?
The point made boils down to the idea that letting a fleeing felon go (if the officer is in hot pursuit), or not stopping a terrorist bomb, or holding up a valid warrant on your kid who's a murderer (unbeknownst to you), etc., would be worse than letting an illegal entry occur. There's no recourse if the felon escapes, the bomb goes off, or you find that the warrant is legal and the murderer escapes. On the other hand, if the search is illegal, the police face criminal and civil legal actions.