Ok, I’ll explain this one more time for you and the rest of kids who took the short bus to school.
This was never a 3d Amendment case. See #44.
This is the case of exigency.
Definition of “exigency:” “a state, especially of need for help or relief, created by some unexpected event.”
These are cases where their is a need for immediate action, where there is no time to get a court order.
For example, if a cop drives past a 2 story house and a woman is hanging out the 2d floor window, with smoke billowing out behind her, he does not need a court order to enter the house.
The homeowner could stand at the door and try to deny entrance all day long. Sorry, he has no legal leg to stand on. Cops go in.
In this case, the life of the woman next door was in danger, and the cops had a reasonably need to be able to observe the scene, possible shoot someone doing her harm, etc.
Two sub points here. It’s not just a cop who could break in during the fire scenario. Any citizen could enter as well, and would not be breaking and entering or trespassing.
Additionally, in the “fire” case, had the cops seen 10 lbs of cocaine in plain sight, it would be entirely admissible in court. If they went into a closet to get her a sheet to cover her because she had been nude when the fire broke out, probably admissible.
Had cops said, we’ll, we’re in the house now, and we think the homeowner’s a drug dealer, let’s search for drugs and they find the cocaine in a safe behind a picture on the wall, confiscatable but not not admissible.
And please, when you post comments such as “serf doesn’t have any choice,” you only make yourself look foolish. Most FReepers can see past that very quickly.
I’m sorry, but we have a fundamental difference of opinion about the relationship between citizens and government. We know exactly where you stand on such things. We’ve seen many such over the years.
You get an A+ for being a FIRST CLASS condescending PLICK!