I’m not entirely positive about this. Doug Book is obviously greatly alarmed for very good reason, but I wonder if we’re presented with the information in a fair way.
If police suspect a crime is currently taking place, they do not need a search warrant. The judge *might* believe that the CI have risen to strong enough cause for that belief in this case. If so, then the judge must consider whether the report of the CI, plus whatever evidence put the CI in place in the first place, might have been sufficient cause for a search warrant.
IOW, the question MAY BE: If a search warrant *could* have been attained legally had not the police believed they were halting the commission of a crime, does the fact that they wrongly believed they were halting the commission of a crime nullify their chance to secure a warrant? If not, would you say the same thing if they were told someone was about to be murdered, and they found a serial killer’s lair?
On the other hand, for all I know the cops were absolutely acting in bad faith. I’m just looking not to rush to judgment.
I don't know if they were (I don't know what was in their hearts), but it appears they lied to the judge to get the warrant. They failed to tell him they were holding the suspects and that they had already searched the premises. They said after the first search, the had found nothing (I don't believe that), then magically found what they must have seen in the earlier search (the pseudoephedren and batteries, components of a meth lab).
Lying to a judge about what they observed or what they were told in order to get a warrant (a lie of omission is still a lie) is about as poisoned a root as you can get. I can't believe so many think that's hunky-dory.
Ah, then what's the purpose of a search warrant?
After all, if they believe a crime is taking place [possession of a banned firearm or drug], why should a warrant be needed to search your person, papers, and effects for evidence at all?