“As you can see, ‘exigent circumstances’ is just an excuse from having to comply with the 4th Amendment”
Yes, but unl;ike the travesties they get away with during traffic stops, at the airport, and when they think they hear you flushing evidence down the toilet, it is a reasonable one, sorta like the yelling fire in a crowded theater exception to amendment one. If any kind of probable cause doesn’t need a warrant it’s an emergency wherein someone’s in danger of death or great bodily harm.
Not that I go around looking for exceptions. We’d probably be better off without them, including the “Fire!” ones.
You just pushed my RANT button:
The "crowded theater" example is so horrendously wrong that its originator should have been laughed out of office in disgrace. There is obviously one case where the person can, and should, yell 'Fire!' and that is when there is a fire; an in like vein, when he perceives a fire he has the responsibility to alert the others.
The correct ruling would have been: The first amendment is clear: congress shall make no law abridging speech. That, however, does not indemnify someone who, with malicious intent, lies so to the public from civil accountability for injury and damages.
Not that I go around looking for exceptions. We’d probably be better off without them, including the “Fire!” ones.
I agree; I absolutely loathe that decision and its line of reasoning.
Maybe we could carve out an exception though ~ a big sign "Fourth Amendment Absolutist" and no matter what happens NO ONE even steps on your lawn.