Here's what the 4th Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Therefore, a warrant is required before there can be a lawful search, and a warrant shall not be issued without probable cause.
Case law and rulings on the 4th Amendment allow certain exceptions, including what the courts have called "exigent circumstances".
Exigent circumstances simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed, but there is still a probable cause requirement. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present. This includes when the police are in 'hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.' In this circumstance, so long as there is probable cause, police may follow the suspect into a residence and seize any evidence in plain view.
These circumstances do not seem to apply in this case. The fugitive was not seen fleeing into the home and there seems to be no evidence of continuing danger. The judge apparently threw out the drug charges on grounds that they had no warrant, and no probable cause existed for a search.
If wideawake's logic were to apply, then police could enter and search any property they wished by merely reported that they were looking for a fugitive and that they had "heard" that he or she might be inside the property. The Gestapo did this on a regular basis, but I am unaware of any court ruling that has found this to be Constitutional.
and you sir are completely right on all the points of the law your cited.
Why would somebody tell someone who had no brains to use their brains?
Clearly you've begun with misrepresentation.
a warrant shall not be issued without probable cause
Correct. Therefore any lawful search without a warrant would have to at a minimum achieve that standard.
certain exceptions, including what the courts have called "exigent circumstances"
Precisely. But even in exigent circumstances they have to meet the probable cause standard.
The fugitive was not seen fleeing into the home and there seems to be no evidence of continuing danger.
Continuing danger is a good reason, but not the only one.
If wideawake's logic were to apply, then police could enter and search any property they wished by merely reported that they were looking for a fugitive and that they had "heard" that he or she might be inside the property.
This is also misrepresentation.
If they had entered into this home in search of a fugitive who turned out not to have been there recently or at all, then this would be an open and shut case of home invasion.
But even the complainant admits the fugitive had recently been in the home and if the police had been there earlier they would have got him.
The Gestapo did this on a regular basis
Record time to Godwin's Law of the Internet?