Not at all. Her comment was that child safety supercedes the right to privacy. That safety, from the presence of a particular (freed) person within a neighborhood (call it a square mile?) is not an "exigent circumstance", but a general background concept. Since that danger would exist at all times, then the right to privacy is superceded at all times. The right to be free of searches without a warrant is based upon the right to privacy. Ergo, the warrant requirement is always superceded when there is a background issue of child safety, even if the (potential!) danger is a mile away.
That's a great explanation. When any of that comes close to starting to happen, please let me know.