No Warrant, no entry..... and your exigent circumstances don't wash even a little bit, and your #44 is legal masterbation, and as insignificant as your argument.
You can not ignore Marbury V Madison. either the constitution stands or the country fails.
" LEOs had a legal right to entry"
In a nazi police state not in a constitutional republic.
I’m sorry, but your “No Warrant, no entry” may be a great phrase to shout around the bar, but is legal foolishness.
The Supreme Court has recognized four circumstances in which “the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrant-less search [of a person’s person, home, vehicle or controlled area] is totally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Exigent circumstances are present as a matter of law:
(1) to engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; (no, LEOs don’t need the homeowner’s permission if they are chasing someone from a felonious car chase, for example.
(2) to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence; (no, LEOs do not have to wait outside for a warrant while the drug dealer flushes all his heroin down the drain)
(3) to prevent a suspect from escaping; (no, if you are a suspect, they can enter a home if there is vocalizeable evidence that you were attempting to flee,)and
(4) to prevent imminent harm to police or third parties. (no, they don’t have to wait outside for a warrant if such delay might have a potential result of a person actually being hurt or in a reasonable likelihood of such harm)
In this case, an ongoing imminent harm to a 3d party was present in the ongoing domestic violence next door, as per #4 above.
I seriously suggest you (and everyone else) review United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279, 286-87 before anyone is foolish to follow your advice that they can resist LEO entry in light and/or occasions of exigent circumstances.
That all falls under something called the Constitution. Sorry you do not like it.