The scenario that you suggest, the Constitutional scenario involving probable cause and a warrant, would have been the only way to have caught the terrorist. Obviously if the terrorist was holding somebody hostage, the hostage’s family would have to refuse entry! Otherwise the terrorist would be caught! How stupid! Terrorist: “I’m holding you’re son hostage to hide out in your home, so make sure the po-po searches this place well!”
“Obviously if the terrorist was holding somebody hostage, the hostage’s family would have to refuse entry! “
Incorrect. If the police were denied entry in the first place, which is what the “chicken little police state” crowd want...then the terrorist could have gone on hiding and his whereabouts would have been unknown.
But, if the house is searched, and the terrorist is there...obviously, the jig is up. Whether by search or by family refusing the search.
But it is the LAW - no entry without permission without a court ordered warrant... If the resident says No - No means No ... unless there is probable cause like blood in sight, bruises on the person who answers the door, or the person who answers the door is secretly pointing or showing strong signs of distress ... without such signs of probable cause - the police must back off...