I have several different viewpoints about this issue, so I would like to know the views of others. A pretty far to the right publication notified me that this case is the end of the world for the U.S.......again. But, I have certain reservations about both sides of this argument.
Here is the deal;http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...on-of-evidencePolice do not need a search warrant if, after knocking on a closed door and announcing their presence, they discern that evidence of a crime is being destroyed on the other side, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday.
And here is the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_ConstitutionThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I am not really savy on how long it takes for police to obtain a warrant. I do however, see where this issue can really be abused by police. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has only made a ruling on this one instance, which truthfully, there is not enough specific data for me to determine one way or the other if I think the police did the right thing.
If the police had heard screams of terror or pain, should they not be able to intrude without a warrant? Then again, since I don't think drug use should be illegal, I just cannot justify breaking into a house because of drug use for any reason.