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.
“blocked the officer from entering while the wife was telling him to let the officer in.”
Someone there on the spot expressing distress — no illegal entry. If that isn’t probable cause, I don’t know what is [although I’m no lawyer either].
“... 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.”
I agree. Since the judge forced the issue with his ruling, here we are.
I can heartily respect your defending the safety of police officers who are merely trying to perform their duties. At the same time, I like the concept of natural deterence and modernized warrant issuing. We have i-pads now, so I’m thinking that the window of “probable cause” could be tightened with more modern technology. We might need aroudnd-the-clock “warrant specialists”, but big deal.
And if a search turns out to actually be illegal and against the will of the home owner, a man blocking a doorway shouldn’t get in any trouble. Heck, I’d even allow warning shots so long as the officer isn’t hurt.