[ctdonath2]

Note that Thomas concurred, and only Ginsburg dissented. That says something good.

Skimming the ruling, it seems sensible. It’s equivalent to a “Terry stop” - a warrantless search allowed on the grounds that any competent person would conclude that a crime was being committed, that it was being committed without motivation by undue threat, and that any delay in doing the search would reasonably result in destruction of evidence of any wrongdoing. To wit, there isn’t time to get a warrant, and by all expectations a warrant WOULD be granted (and WILL be retroactively).

Lower courts had developed a variety of inconsistent ways of handling the particular issue, and time has come for SCOTUS to impose a uniform standard.

Upshot: cops suspect criminal activity, knock on the door, get no answer, and hear sounds making clear evidence is being destroyed with fear and haste. Insofar as possession of contraband is a crime, of course police may thus execute a search before said contraband is destroyed and disposed.

Don’t confuse this with the other case of late, where a state (Wisconsin?) declared one may not resist an ILLEGAL search. In this case, the search is deemed legal as the only thing lacking is paperwork, which will without doubt be procured once the urgency is passed.

[ctdonath2]

Note that this does NOT protect police if they perform the warrantless search and do not find the alleged at-risk evidence.

[paul51]

Skimming the ruling, it seems sensible. It’s equivalent to a “Terry stop”

In the sense that it is a logical continuation down the slippery slope, you are correct.

[jonascord]

You just get all sweaty and breathe hard with the freedoms given to the JBTs by this Drug War thing?

This is like that South Park joke! Scream "He's coming straight for us!" just before you shoot... Except, no one is laughing.

Try "flushing" 10 kilos of crack. Even if he managed it, you've stopped all that drug use, bankrupted him, destroyed his plumbing, buzzed a few thousand fish, and not broken the Bill of Rights. Is some pissy "arrest" so valuable? I just hope some 'roided cop hears your TV...

[microgood]

Upshot: cops suspect criminal activity, knock on the door, get no answer, and hear sounds making clear evidence is being destroyed with fear and haste.

They did not rule on this but sounds like a cop could claim this anytime they want to enter a residence. A Carte blanch open door to any house in America.

Insofar as possession of contraband is a crime, of course police may thus execute a search before said contraband is destroyed and disposed.

This is how the drug warriors were able to trash the 4th Amendment - they got SCOTUS to grant an exception to the 4th Amendment because evidence might be destroyed. There is a special place in hell waiting for those that made this ruling (Rehnquist is already there).

This proves that conservatives are as big a threat as liberals to our Constitution and freedoms.

[OneWingedShark]

>In this case, the search is deemed legal as the only thing lacking is paperwork, which will without doubt be procured once the urgency is passed.

Ah, does that mean I can carry my firearms around concealed and then apply for a CCW after I’m caught, as the only thing lacking is paperwork?

[gdani]

Skimming the ruling, it seems sensible. It’s equivalent to a “Terry stop” -

No, it's not. While there are now *some* similarities in the case law, it's nowhere near "equivalent" when it comes to both the law & circumstances.