[Peter from Rutland]

I don’t see the problem. They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment. Did any of you actually read the document?

[blackdog]

This one along with the Indiana Supreme Court ruling tipped the point. The Indiana one only affirms the worst.

[jonascord]

So, you're OK with junking the restrictions of the 4th Amendment on the police: No warrent is ever required with the expectation that the courts will EVENTUALLY pick up the slack, AFTER THE FACT, ONCE THE BODIES ARE IN THE GROUND?!?!

You've developed an interesting legal presumption. May the chains rest lightly on you...

[Sprite518]

Peter it’s called the law. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.

Cops don’t get to pick and choose the laws they do not like. Sorry everyone, and specially the police since they are the law enforcers, have to follow it.

If you let them get away with this, then it will not be long before you are target. Sorry but I STRONGLY disagree with you. I don’t care if it was to get a criminal. The cops have to play by the rules too.

These judges should be removed from the bench. They have violated their own Oath.

[ctdonath2]

I’m with you. Those objecting are reacting, not thinking, as they have not in fact read the ruling. It is very sensible.

[r9etb]

Did any of you actually read the document?

Psh... This is FR. The ones who yell loudest, are the ones most likely not to have read the document. And there are a lot of loud yellers around here.

[OneWingedShark]

>I don’t see the problem. They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment. Did any of you actually read the document?

In the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH it describes the situation and says that the destruction of evidence was the “probable cause,” but if that then this is the new situation in jurisprudence: The police can bust-in and claim that it was to prevent destruction of evidence.

This is VERY dangerous in that the police can “retcon” their story to make the “evidence” that they were looking for into what was actually found. Requiring a warrant which “PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES THE PERSON OR THING” that the police are looking for is the *ONLY* thing that prevents this sort of tomfoolery and corruption.

[org.whodat]

I read it and it did seem in this case they had cause.

[Clump]

Probable cause is not enough to enter and search a house. It’s not like searching a car where the individual has a lesser expectation of privacy.

[Glenn]

They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment.

Perhaps in this limited case.

But you do understand precedent law, right? Judges and prosecutors are pretty much free to cite this case from here to eternity in cases that are not so narrow.