Flushing the toilet is now cause for a search

[Uraniun235]

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110517,0,6746878.story
latimes.com
Supreme Court gives police leeway in home searches
Officers may break in if they hear sounds and suspect that evidence is being destroyed, the justices say in an 8-1 decision. Justice Ginsburg dissents.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

May 17, 2011

Reporting from Washington


The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.

"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.

In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.

The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, "Police," and heard people moving inside.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. Instead of the original suspect, they found Hollis King smoking marijuana and arrested him. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers' conduct "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking in to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," Alito wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police had faced an emergency situation in this case.

david.savage@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.

As someone on another forum put it: You are taking a shit. Police knock on your door. You flush the toilet and stand up, and start walking toward the door. The police now have probable cause.

[Master of Ossus]

A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.

As someone on another forum put it: You are taking a shit. Police knock on your door. You flush the toilet and stand up, and start walking toward the door. The police now have probable cause.

That's a misreading of the case. Police already need probable cause for exigent circumstances to apply (which, in this case, they had because they could smell the marijuana). The issue is whether they need probable cause and a search warrant to enter. Once they have probable cause, if they suspect that evidence is being destroyed (e.g., drugs are being flushed, or evidence is being burned or documents are being shredded in a tax fraud case, or whatever), then they can enter without a warrant for the limited purpose of checking to make sure that evidence is not being destroyed, and to prevent further destruction of evidence while they are applying for a warrant in the background.

This case is not a substantial expansion on the exigent circumstances doctrine that already exists--it just clarifies this at the SCOTUS level, whereas before the circuits all had slight variations on the same doctrine.

[Norade]

Sounds like it makes things even easier, they smell something hear something else and then suddenly police are kicking our door in. Police need more home invasion restrictions not less.

[Highlord Laan]

"We smelled pot, so we busted in the door, shot the dog, and savagely beat the 'suspect' because we could and we can get away with it. No drugs were found, but we had to be sure. For the children and all that."

[Zaune]

That's a misreading of the case. Police already need probable cause for exigent circumstances to apply (which, in this case, they had because they could smell the marijuana).

This strikes me as pretty marginal for probable cause by itself. Smoke often enough and the smell will linger for weeks afterwards; for all the cops knew it could have been the previous tenant's doing. Neither is it especially easy to verify later.

[Winston Blake]

Police already need probable cause for exigent circumstances to apply (which, in this case, they had because they could smell the marijuana). The issue is whether they need probable cause and a search warrant to enter. Once they have probable cause, if they suspect that evidence is being destroyed (e.g., drugs are being flushed, or evidence is being burned or documents are being shredded in a tax fraud case, or whatever), then they can enter without a warrant for the limited purpose of checking to make sure that evidence is not being destroyed, and to prevent further destruction of evidence while they are applying for a warrant in the background.

The problem with this is that when the 'probable cause' is evidence that can be destroyed, the fact that 'suspicion of destroying evidence' is grounds for forced entry makes the police's position potentially unfalsifiable. For example, this alteration makes unprovably illegal searches (for intimidation, for kicks, or by mistake) possible on the level of an individual police officer, instead of requiring collusion on several levels. (This increased unfalsifiability is what Highlord Laan is alluding to).

Further, considering the confusion of fast-moving situations, police are much more likely for be forgiven for mistakes, compared to if mistakes had happened after a careful deliberative process (i.e. preparing a search warrant). This effectively helps insulate cops from the usual consequences, in cases of both honest mistakes and fake mistakes.

So yes, it may be a small alteration, but it may significantly increase the moral hazards that exist in police work, via 'lower falsifiability' and 'lower accountability for mistakes'.

This case is not a substantial expansion on the exigent circumstances doctrine that already exists

Well, it never is.

[Master of Ossus]

This strikes me as pretty marginal for probable cause by itself. Smoke often enough and the smell will linger for weeks afterwards; for all the cops knew it could have been the previous tenant's doing. Neither is it especially easy to verify later.

Probable cause =/= "certainty beyond a reasonable doubt." It only requires enough evidence to make it to be reasonable to believe that a person committed a crime. Here, the smell of marijuana seems sufficient to meet that standard. Are there reasons the smell could exist if the current tenant isn't smoking marijuana? Sure. But it's enough to make someone believe, isn't it?

The problem with this is that when the 'probable cause' is evidence that can be destroyed, the fact that 'suspicion of destroying evidence' is grounds for forced entry makes the police's position potentially unfalsifiable.

I don't really see that. This still requires much more than a mere fear among officers that evidence can be destroyed. It requires actual circumstances which could lead them to the belief that evidence is being destroyed, and it still only allows them to enter for the limited purpose of preventing further destruction of evidence--a general search has to wait for a warrant.

For example, this alteration makes unprovably illegal searches (for intimidation, for kicks, or by mistake) possible on the level of an individual police officer, instead of requiring collusion on several levels. (This increased unfalsifiability is what Highlord Laan is alluding to).

Further, considering the confusion of fast-moving situations, police are much more likely for be forgiven for mistakes, compared to if mistakes had happened after a careful deliberative process (i.e. preparing a search warrant). This effectively helps insulate cops from the usual consequences, in cases of both honest mistakes and fake mistakes.

So yes, it may be a small alteration, but it may significantly increase the moral hazards that exist in police work, via 'lower falsifiability' and 'lower accountability for mistakes'.

I don't really see that at all. Police who have probable cause in many Circuits already have this ability. This was just the first case to which cert was granted, and so it set up earlier cases as a national rule. And, really, how can you expect the rule to be otherwise? Say that police saw someone destroying evidence through an open window, and knew that (given the time of night) it would take several hours for them to get a warrant to search the guy's house. Would you really want them to have to just sit on their hands while waiting for their colleague to get back with a warrant, allowing the guy to destroy obvious evidence?

This case is not a substantial expansion on the exigent circumstances doctrine that already exists

Well, it never is.

Allow me to rephrase. The doctrine already exists more-or-less entirely as the Supreme Court laid out in the Ninth and Fifth Circuits. The Fourth Circuit has a similar policy, albeit one that uses slightly different tests. So why is this a big infringement on rights, given that a significant fraction of the national populace already live with law enforcement which has this ability?

[Simon_Jester]

Whether people live under a regime which infringes their rights has nothing to do with whether their rights are infringed.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the police to be able to search my home on the basis of their assertion that they hear something that could be a sign that hypothetical evidence is being destroyed- that this should not be considered "probable cause" in the sense of the term that can be used for a warrantless search the way a scream or an explosion would be.

Again, let us suppose, for the moment, purely for the sake of argument, that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Does it become less of a violation because parts of the country are already forced to put up with it? Common sense tells us that if the police are violating the Constitution, it does not matter how many of them are doing it; they are still violating the Constitution.

"Well, it happens in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits already" is not an argument which justifies saying "therefore, it's fine." Tests of constitutionality depend on what the law should become, not what the law is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Sounds like it makes things even easier, they smell something hear something else and then suddenly police are kicking our door in. Police need more home invasion restrictions not less.

Incorrect, Norade. Something wouldn't be probable cause. However, the distinct odor of marijuana would be. I'm assuming you've smelt marijuana and are able to identify it by smell in different places, yes?

Just say what you're really getting at. You don't trust the police. You don't believe that police observations should carry any worth. That's fine. However, consider that in order to secure a warrant a judge must review police observations. So, really you're just complaining that the police are now able to stop someone from destroying evidence and you don't feel the police should be able to effectively enforce the law.

[Simon_Jester]

It's mostly a question of the standard of evidence.

I think we can all agree that allowing police to break doors down on a hunch or a whim is a bad thing- so bad, it's not even on the table and I'm not accusing anyone of thinking that would be a good idea.

But what is the standard? If a policeman hears screams inside a residence, that can justify abrupt intervention, fine. If a policeman smells marijuana, knocks on the door, and hears a flushing toilet? That's... I don't know. I'm not so sure of that, or of other ways the basic principle could be applied.

My concerns come down to falsifiability- how easy or difficult is it for a hypothetical reviewer to look at the policeman's behavior and decide whether they made a good or bad call.

If a policeman knocks on the door of a house, hears screams, and busts in, someone else on the force can look back on that and say "yes, he acted reasonably." or "no, he overreacted, he should have recognized that the heavy metal music playing upstairs was not a real screaming person" or something like that.

If a policeman knocks on a door, smells pot, and hears a flushing toilet... it depends on more factors. A flushing toilet can easily be a coincidence. The smell of pot can't be- but what if the smell comes from next door, or is relatively faint such that it might be a lingering odor left behind by something that doesn't reflect badly on the homeowner, or any number of other things?

Obviously, a policeman can use his judgment to decide when there is insufficient smell of marijuana to justify his suspicions. But how could someone else after the fact gainsay him if he overreacts? Can we know just how strong a basis he had for a warrantless search?

That's important not so much because of the desire to make it harder for police to catch criminals, as because of the need to establish a firm line between "go in on a hunch" (which results in a lot of people being unnecessarily harassed, or in fear of being harassed) and "sufficient basis to go in."

Warrants are the normal way of assuring this; in cases where a policeman does something on the basis of probable cause, it's troubling when "probable cause" is expanded in ways that make it easier for innocent misunderstandings to result in trouble with the police.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's mostly a question of the standard of evidence.

I think we can all agree that allowing police to break doors down on a hunch or a whim is a bad thing- so bad, it's not even on the table and I'm not accusing anyone of thinking that would be a good idea.

But what is the standard? If a policeman hears screams inside a residence, that can justify abrupt intervention, fine. If a policeman smells marijuana, knocks on the door, and hears a flushing toilet? That's... I don't know. I'm not so sure of that, or of other ways the basic principle could be applied.

My concerns come down to falsifiability- how easy or difficult is it for a hypothetical reviewer to look at the policeman's behavior and decide whether they made a good or bad call.

If a policeman knocks on the door of a house, hears screams, and busts in, someone else on the force can look back on that and say "yes, he acted reasonably." or "no, he overreacted, he should have recognized that the heavy metal music playing upstairs was not a real screaming person" or something like that.

If a policeman knocks on a door, smells pot, and hears a flushing toilet... it depends on more factors. A flushing toilet can easily be a coincidence. The smell of pot can't be- but what if the smell comes from next door, or is relatively faint such that it might be a lingering odor left behind by something that doesn't reflect badly on the homeowner, or any number of other things?

Obviously, a policeman can use his judgment to decide when there is insufficient smell of marijuana to justify his suspicions. But how could someone else after the fact gainsay him if he overreacts? Can we know just how strong a basis he had for a warrantless search?

That's important not so much because of the desire to make it harder for police to catch criminals, as because of the need to establish a firm line between "go in on a hunch" (which results in a lot of people being unnecessarily harassed, or in fear of being harassed) and "sufficient basis to go in."

Warrants are the normal way of assuring this; in cases where a policeman does something on the basis of probable cause, it's troubling when "probable cause" is expanded in ways that make it easier for innocent misunderstandings to result in trouble with the police.

I agree. I'm actually against the ruling, despite my comments to Norade. My problem is also the lack of falsifiability, and it goes both ways. It makes it possible for corrupt police to easily lie, however, it also makes it possible for honest police officers to end up holding an empty bag and that is always a bad thing when you've just kicked in someones door.

[Serafina]

In addition to falsifiability, it's also important to assess whether someone is in immediate danger.
When a police officer hears screams from the other side of a door, such danger is very likely. The officer can of course be wrong, but a human life COULD be at stake. Not so when the officer smells marijuana and hears a flushing toilet - even if the assessment is completely correct, no immediate danger to anyone was prevented.

Of course that goes right back into the insanity of the "war on drugs". Drug USERS generally do not endanger anyone but themselves, which is generally legal. Someone being about to use drugs doesn't justify any amount of force and it is not urgent enough to bypass getting a search warrant. Just don't knock on the door, report your suspicions to the proper authorities and get a search warrant.


Bottom line: If an imminent danger might be present, i have no problems of police officers intervening without any warrant.
But no such danger is present with drug use, so there really should be time to assure the proper warrant. Catching some drug users is not worth a broad violation of privacy.

[TheHammer]

I guess the lesson here is to get a reinforced door that isn't so easily kicked in. And on top of that, when police come knocking simply do not move. The huffington post had an extended article on this matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mor ... 63415.html

The fact that police were chasing a suspect when they entered the building and the fact that they smelled marijuana coming from the defendant's apartment and the fact that they heard suspicious noises after knocking were all factors in the legal outcome.

So I've got to wonder if this ruling will have the broad reach everyone is concerned about. I suspect in the near future someone will go too far and we'll see his revisited. At least, I hope that we do...

[Kamakazie Sith]

I guess the lesson here is to get a reinforced door that isn't so easily kicked in. And on top of that, when police come knocking simply do not move. The huffington post had an extended article on this matter.

We carry tools to breach reinforced doors but I'm all for you getting a reinforced door if you don't have it to protect yourself from criminals. The reality is it is still unlikely that a regular citizen who is not breaking the law will have the police kick down their door. I think that's an important distiction to make before we get all conspiracy theory parnoid and start fortifying our homes with the sole purpose of keeping the government out. Don't you?

You'll have to take my word on this but I've been a cop for nearly four years and I have yet to see an example of police corruption from those that I work with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mor ... 63415.html

So I've got to wonder if this ruling will have the broad reach everyone is concerned about. I suspect in the near future someone will go too far and we'll see his revisited. At least, I hope that we do...

You bring up an excellent point. I'm sure we'll be getting training on this matter so I'll update you as to the particulars.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In addition to falsifiability, it's also important to assess whether someone is in immediate danger.
When a police officer hears screams from the other side of a door, such danger is very likely. The officer can of course be wrong, but a human life COULD be at stake. Not so when the officer smells marijuana and hears a flushing toilet - even if the assessment is completely correct, no immediate danger to anyone was prevented.

Of course that goes right back into the insanity of the "war on drugs". Drug USERS generally do not endanger anyone but themselves, which is generally legal. Someone being about to use drugs doesn't justify any amount of force and it is not urgent enough to bypass getting a search warrant. Just don't knock on the door, report your suspicions to the proper authorities and get a search warrant.

I think it is worth noting that I've gone on several calls where people complain of marijuana odor coming into their apartment from their neighbors place. In those situations I feel bad for those complainants because police can do little to help them if the occupants don't answer. It'd be nice to have some way to resolve this particular issue.

Though I guess you could say the same of cigarette smoke...

Bottom line: If an imminent danger might be present, i have no problems of police officers intervening without any warrant.
But no such danger is present with drug use, so there really should be time to assure the proper warrant. Catching some drug users is not worth a broad violation of privacy.

I agree. Though I want to remind everyone that there are a lot of police officers in the United States that feel the same way about marijuana and take no enforcement action whatsoever when encountering users (like me). (Dealers are another matter because we don't have discretion when it comes to felonies).

[TheHammer]

I guess the lesson here is to get a reinforced door that isn't so easily kicked in. And on top of that, when police come knocking simply do not move. The huffington post had an extended article on this matter.

We carry tools to breach reinforced doors but I'm all for you getting a reinforced door if you don't have it to protect yourself from criminals. The reality is it is still unlikely that a regular citizen who is not breaking the law will have the police kick down their door. I think that's an important distiction to make before we get all conspiracy theory parnoid and start fortifying our homes with the sole purpose of keeping the government out. Don't you?

I realize Police have tools to break down reinforced doors. However, my guess is they wouldn't be readily on your person unless you had a warrant in hand to begin with. The point of a reinforced door would be to prevent situations where police "smell marijuana" which could be a dubious claim at best, and decide to kick in someone's door to begin with. The whole "If you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about" mantra isn't exactly comforting...

You'll have to take my word on this but I've been a cop for nearly four years and I have yet to see an example of police corruption from those that I work with.

I'd like to believe that, but then you've got so many instances where there is police misconduct and the response from the police dept seems to be to cover it up, or spin it as best they can. If police misconduct were pursued as vigorously as other crimes, then we wouldn't have to fear such trust being abused nearly as much.

[Highlord Laan]

Sounds like it makes things even easier, they smell something hear something else and then suddenly police are kicking our door in. Police need more home invasion restrictions not less.

Incorrect, Norade. Something wouldn't be probable cause. However, the distinct odor of marijuana would be. I'm assuming you've smelt marijuana and are able to identify it by smell in different places, yes?

Just say what you're really getting at. You don't trust the police. You don't believe that police observations should carry any worth. That's fine. However, consider that in order to secure a warrant a judge must review police observations. So, really you're just complaining that the police are now able to stop someone from destroying evidence and you don't feel the police should be able to effectively enforce the law.

No. We're saying that the police being able to skip the middle man and bust into someone's home without a fucking warrant is total unconstitutional bullshit. Then again, according to one of your own posts, so long as we're innocent, we have nothing to fear from jackbooted thugs with delusions of glory being able to bust in our doors at a whim.

[Norade]

Sounds like it makes things even easier, they smell something hear something else and then suddenly police are kicking our door in. Police need more home invasion restrictions not less.

Incorrect, Norade. Something wouldn't be probable cause. However, the distinct odor of marijuana would be. I'm assuming you've smelt marijuana and are able to identify it by smell in different places, yes?

Just say what you're really getting at. You don't trust the police. You don't believe that police observations should carry any worth. That's fine. However, consider that in order to secure a warrant a judge must review police observations. So, really you're just complaining that the police are now able to stop someone from destroying evidence and you don't feel the police should be able to effectively enforce the law.

I say something because smelling a drug is a pretty easy thing to falsify the same as hearing what could be a guy taking a dump after smoking a joint. Anything that makes it more likely that SWAT enter faster and with less prep time is always going to be a bad thing in my books. If anything they ought to cut the water and stopper the flow of the target house at the main line. Something that can be done prior to the raid and without raising any eyebrows.

Sounds like it makes things even easier, they smell something hear something else and then suddenly police are kicking our door in. Police need more home invasion restrictions not less.

Incorrect, Norade. Something wouldn't be probable cause. However, the distinct odor of marijuana would be. I'm assuming you've smelt marijuana and are able to identify it by smell in different places, yes?

Just say what you're really getting at. You don't trust the police. You don't believe that police observations should carry any worth. That's fine. However, consider that in order to secure a warrant a judge must review police observations. So, really you're just complaining that the police are now able to stop someone from destroying evidence and you don't feel the police should be able to effectively enforce the law.

No. We're saying that the police being able to skip the middle man and bust into someone's home without a fucking warrant is total unconstitutional bullshit. Then again, according to one of your own posts, so long as we're innocent, we have nothing to fear from jackbooted thugs with delusions of glory being able to bust in our doors at a whim.

Except for your pets safety as well as your own...

[Terralthra]

Sounds like it makes things even easier, they smell something hear something else and then suddenly police are kicking our door in. Police need more home invasion restrictions not less.

Incorrect, Norade. Something wouldn't be probable cause. However, the distinct odor of marijuana would be. I'm assuming you've smelt marijuana and are able to identify it by smell in different places, yes?

Just say what you're really getting at. You don't trust the police. You don't believe that police observations should carry any worth. That's fine. However, consider that in order to secure a warrant a judge must review police observations. So, really you're just complaining that the police are now able to stop someone from destroying evidence and you don't feel the police should be able to effectively enforce the law.

I say something because smelling a drug is a pretty easy thing to falsify the same as hearing what could be a guy taking a dump after smoking a joint. Anything that makes it more likely that SWAT enter faster and with less prep time is always going to be a bad thing in my books. If anything they ought to cut the water and stopper the flow of the target house at the main line. Something that can be done prior to the raid and without raising any eyebrows.

This case has zip to do with SWAT. If SWAT are involved, the PD will already have a search warrant, and probable cause is no longer an issue. This is an ordinary police officer acting here. Read the case before you make comments, please.

[Norade]

This case has zip to do with SWAT. If SWAT are involved, the PD will already have a search warrant, and probable cause is no longer an issue. This is an ordinary police officer acting here. Read the case before you make comments, please.

Even worse then, regular police have even less training for entering a home with unknown circumstances inside.

[Terralthra]

This case has zip to do with SWAT. If SWAT are involved, the PD will already have a search warrant, and probable cause is no longer an issue. This is an ordinary police officer acting here. Read the case before you make comments, please.

Even worse then, regular police have even less training for entering a home with unknown circumstances inside.

So, a police officer who has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed shouldn't investigate that crime, they should go get a warrant and call SWAT? Out of curiosity, what do you think trained police officers are actually competent to do? And how will calling SWAT for every possible crime occurring behind a door reduce the amount of unnecessary home intrusions by peace officers?

[Norade]

This case has zip to do with SWAT. If SWAT are involved, the PD will already have a search warrant, and probable cause is no longer an issue. This is an ordinary police officer acting here. Read the case before you make comments, please.

Even worse then, regular police have even less training for entering a home with unknown circumstances inside.

So, a police officer who has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed shouldn't investigate that crime, they should go get a warrant and call SWAT? Out of curiosity, what do you think trained police officers are actually competent to do? And how will calling SWAT for every possible crime occurring behind a door reduce the amount of unnecessary home intrusions by peace officers?

If investigating the crime means kicking in a families door because their teenage son's friend sparked a joint in the shitter and flushed on his way out I'd say they likely shouldn't be allowed that level of freedom. As for what I think most police are capable of, I'd honestly say not too very much based on personal experience. Of course they're supposed to have basic first aid training, be able to talk to people calmly in highs stress situations, and use nonlethal force in many situations and we know how often they manage to fuck that up.

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

[Terralthra]

Even worse then, regular police have even less training for entering a home with unknown circumstances inside.

So, a police officer who has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed shouldn't investigate that crime, they should go get a warrant and call SWAT? Out of curiosity, what do you think trained police officers are actually competent to do? And how will calling SWAT for every possible crime occurring behind a door reduce the amount of unnecessary home intrusions by peace officers?

If investigating the crime means kicking in a families door because their teenage son's friend sparked a joint in the shitter and flushed on his way out I'd say they likely shouldn't be allowed that level of freedom. As for what I think most police are capable of, I'd honestly say not too very much based on personal experience. Of course they're supposed to have basic first aid training, be able to talk to people calmly in highs stress situations, and use nonlethal force in many situations and we know how often they manage to fuck that up.

Have you stopped to think about any other situation besides "an insignificant amount of drugs"? I'm guessing no. And what exactly is your "personal experience" with American police forces?

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

US prison guards are not police officers.

"This story" is of chasing a crack cocaine dealer and informant and finding another person in possession of fairly large amounts of cocaine, after breaking down the door when they heard movement indicating that he was trying to dispose of evidence...correctly. The perp in question even entered a guilty plea, for fuck's sake.

[Winston Blake]

The problem with this is that when the 'probable cause' is evidence that can be destroyed, the fact that 'suspicion of destroying evidence' is grounds for forced entry makes the police's position potentially unfalsifiable.

I don't really see that. This still requires much more than a mere fear among officers that evidence can be destroyed. It requires actual circumstances which could lead them to the belief that evidence is being destroyed, and it still only allows them to enter for the limited purpose of preventing further destruction of evidence--a general search has to wait for a warrant.

You can say 'limited' all you like, but to actually ensure that such activities aren't going in a house, police could justify entering every room and opening every closet, by force if necessary. You're sticking to the 'good' scenario, without bothering to look at all the ways this could go wrong.

And, really, how can you expect the rule to be otherwise? Say that police saw someone destroying evidence through an open window, and knew that (given the time of night) it would take several hours for them to get a warrant to search the guy's house. Would you really want them to have to just sit on their hands while waiting for their colleague to get back with a warrant, allowing the guy to destroy obvious evidence?

Yes. Because shit happens. You've set up a scenario where the destruction of evidence is an 'obvious', incontrovertible fact - 'police saw someone...', rather than 'police claimed they saw someone...' or 'police believed they saw someone...'. You might as well start a scenario with 'Say police just knew someone was guilty, then shouldn't they obviously put them in prison?'. This attitude is completely detached from the entire idea of empiricism, evidence, accountability, unintended consquences, and checks and balances.

I don't really see that at all. Police who have probable cause in many Circuits already have this ability. This was just the first case to which cert was granted, and so it set up earlier cases as a national rule. [...] Allow me to rephrase. The doctrine already exists more-or-less entirely as the Supreme Court laid out in the Ninth and Fifth Circuits. The Fourth Circuit has a similar policy, albeit one that uses slightly different tests. So why is this a big infringement on rights, given that a significant fraction of the national populace already live with law enforcement which has this ability?

Simon Jester appears to be addressing this. I admit that I wasn't aware that this was already policy in several places (I'm not American). However it should be obvious that the fact that certain powers exist or have existed, doesn't justify them logically. It merely makes them more emotionally acceptable. For example, consider the absurdity of applying your final sentence to an expansion of police powers in apartheid-era South Africa.

[Norade]

Have you stopped to think about any other situation besides "an insignificant amount of drugs"? I'm guessing no. And what exactly is your "personal experience" with American police forces?

You can't flush more than an insignificant amount of drugs anyway so you really have no point here. Care to rethink your position without the rose colored glasses?

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

US prison guards are not police officers.

"This story" is of chasing a crack cocaine dealer and informant and finding another person in possession of fairly large amounts of cocaine, after breaking down the door when they heard movement indicating that he was trying to dispose of evidence...correctly. The perp in question even entered a guilty plea, for fuck's sake.

You're ignoring the rest of the paragraph and the fact that all through the American police it seems that if you aren't corrupt you're just incompetent. As for this story, who really gives two shits how much coke they got, unless the gov't is making mint off it this war is costing a ton for no real gain. Just grow the shit yourself America and ave everybody a ton of hassle.