Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sole defender of your Fourth Amendment rights:
How “secure” do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?
Lawyers, Guns, and Money is particularly trenchant in response:
it’s the latest example of the drift of the exigency exception away from actual emergencies and toward the mere convenience of the police. If the police have time to obtain a warrant and there isn’t an actual emergency, they should be required to obtain one.
Yep. Why is this (seemingly) so difficult to a) understand –and– b) get the general public agitated about? Today it’s suspected drug dealers and suspected terrorists whose rights are summarily discarded in the name of “exigency.” Next it will be suspected whatevers. Some time after that, you’ll have no recourse whatsoever to stop the police from randomly entering your house and ransacking it for evidence of crime, any crime, at any moment they care to do so. Exigency!
When literally everything is an extension of the War on Drugs/Terror/bogeyman-of-the-day, then everything is easy to deem simply too exigent to bother getting a warrant. Indefinite detention without charge, assassination of US citizens (without trial), a gulag off the coast and a chain of secret prisons beyond that gulag, and now further, near-unanimous defenestration of our most basic rights.
Seriously, is any of this, even a hint of it, worth whatever public policy victory we think we’re getting out of it, even using the most optimistic possible reading of (in this case) the War on Drugs? I don’t see how anyone could think so.
Lemkin 