Never mind the bollocks, here's the police

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How difficult is it to get a warrant to search a home, car or other place?

Depends on where you are.

And you'll wait while I read the warrant.

In some places, getting a warrant is a matter of minutes. A phone call to the judge, a brief conversation and warrant is ready.

That is not the case everywhere.

The Supreme Court has issued an 8-1 decision stating if law enforcement believes evidence is being destroyed, they can go ahead and enter a building to prevent destruction of evidence.

NY Times story. Here's the actual decision. This one drops a PDF file to your computer.

As I sit here, I am uncertain about this decision.

In the sole dissent, Ruth Ginsberg wrote: “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

It keeps on slippin', slippin' slippin'

My question: Did they have ample time to get a warrant?

Answer: Dunno.

Evidence of a crime can be destroyed in seconds. Can you get a warrant in seconds. Sort of.

If you consider the time needed to get a warrant being: The time from suspecting illegal activity is taking place to actually getting a warrant, the answer has to be no.

If you consider the time needed to get a warrant being: The time a judge needs to sign the paper, the answer is yes.

Reality says someone must contact the judge (however long that takes), judge has to hear the report of the illegal activity and then OK a warrant. This process does not happen in less than 5 seconds.

At the same time the US Constitution protects citizens against unwarranted search and seizure.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/15/aaron-tobey-student-with-4th-amendment-on-chest-sues-over-airp/

The 4th Amendment -  The 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.

That is not a hard and fast rule, despite its appearance. "Probable cause" leaves a lot of wiggle room. SCOTUS has ruled in the past if officers have valid reason, they don't need a warrant to search and seize. Drug-detecting dogs are a great example of this. If the dog "hits" on drugs in a vehicle, it can be searched without a warrant. Offices witnessing an illegal act can intervene without a warrant. They can also intervene if a life is being threatened.

Those situations call for snap judgments.

As you and I sit here, looking at the situation after the fact, are we really in a position to adequately say what an officer should do when a snap judgment is called for?

At the same time, we are supposed to be protected from a police state.

I just dunno.

The men and women in law enforcement have a seriously hard job. I consider it the hardest job around. The military, at least, understands they are entering hostile territory and have the right to shoot back (plus they have missiles and bombs). LE doesn't have that kind of support, but they enter situations which amount to war zones.

Arg.

I just can't come up with a firm opinion on this one.