Yep. That works. You also don’t need a warrant under what is called “exigent circumstances” exception, shorthand for a fast moving emergency where there’s no time to get a warrant based on probable cause. Example would be you’re a cop and you just saw an armed criminal enter a house with small children looking out the window. The law, for a very long time, has permitted warrantless searches under such conditions. Can the exception be abused? yes, and it has been, and might have been here, depending on specific situations. But chalking this up to wholesale rejection of the Fourth is not realistic. Nothing defines “exigent circumstance” better than a bomb throwing terrorist running around in a residential neighborhood.
“Nothing defines “exigent circumstance” better than a bomb throwing terrorist running around in a residential neighborhood.” That won’t fly at my threshold after I tell them no bomb throwing terrorist has run around the neighborhood and into my home. Guns or no guns. If they are looking for me that’s another matter. If they want to perform a search a warrant is required and it had better meet the criterion. I defend my castle against all bomb throwing terrorists and other assorted evildoers running around my neighborhood. Including unreasonable badge-heavy enforcers of the law who threaten me with harm and present the means of doing so.
(Opens door) “Good (Whatever time) officer. Would you like a cup of coffee? (Q) No. I haven’t seen any bomb throwing terrorists. Do I look like the man you’re looking for? No? (Q) A search. Why whatever for? Do you have a warrant to do so at this residence? Well then, no, you may not. The coffee offer is good anytime by the way. Good day sir. (Closes door)
(Nosy spouse) “Who was that dear?”
“Kirby vacuum salesman. I told him we had the super-duper come catch me quick model. He’s gone.”
Cheers.
Not exactly. He was on foot. The cops knew he had no more bombs to throw. They also did not know which house he went into, if any. (In point of fact, he never went into any home.) Your entire basis for "exigent circumstances" is that he was alive, and probably within a mile radius. I would say that any reasonable judge would find that to NOT be "exigent circumstances".
What makes people lose their minds and their focus is that he got the special label "terrorist", and so we assume he has something like video game bag filled with unlimited explosives (he didn't), he can physically overpower any team of cops or soldiers (he couldn't), and that he is out to kill everyone at all times and for no reason during his flight (he wasn't).
IF the police saw him, or IF a witness claims to have seen him (like the man with the boat), THEN an "exigent circumstance" could exist. They were free to go into the yard and get into the boat. But for EVERY other home and possession they searched, they did so illegally. Whoever authorized the search should face consequences... but since we love anti-terrorism drama more than we love Freedom or following the Constitution, that idea would never fly in our modern America.