http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdfRemember the drug dealer case where the guys dash into their apartment, the cops follow and hear noise of "evidence being destroyed" and use that as "exigent circumstances?"
SCOTUS went 8-1 in favor of the LEO door-kicking-whenever-it's-fun policy.
Ginsberg dissented.
An aside... why is it always the scum-sucking druggies or pedophiles that end up being used as the test cases for all this junk, and the temptation to protect society from one small danger always serves as a means to introduce a greater institutionalized danger to all our rights?
Now police can manufacture exigent circumstances, and use interpretive logic to draw a conclusion of exigent circumstances.
Po-po knock on your door.
You shuffle to the door, see it's po-po, and decide you don't care to talk to them.
They infer exigent circumstances from that, and the noise of you walking away from the door. You're
obviously stuffing your drug stash down the toilet, or hiding your pedo-porn collection, or cleaning up your WMD lab in your living room, so they kick your door down to try and catch you in the act.
