[ctdonath2]

They did not rule on this but sounds like a cop could claim this anytime they want to enter a residence.

Not so, because they darned well better GET that evidence once they go in. If they "claim this" and enter, and have nothing to show for it, they're in trouble.

[ResponseAbility]

****Not so, because they darned well better GET that evidence once they go in. If they “claim this” and enter, and have nothing to show for it, they’re in trouble.****

Since when do cops get into “trouble”. They get paid administrative leave at worst.

And if they were not tempted to “throw down” evidence before this ruling, if there were serious consequences they would sorely be tempted now.

[microgood]

Not so, because they darned well better GET that evidence once they go in. If they "claim this" and enter, and have nothing to show for it, they're in trouble.

Sure. Cops never get in trouble for violating people's rights.

There is a reason they came up with the exclusionary rule. If you know that your evidence will not be excluded if you break into a home and find some drugs, why bother getting a warrant? You are betting that the person will not fight back with a civil law suit (the only possible remedy of the homeowner).

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.