"Your door's open."

[DGUtley]

"The state must establish"... when? After the warrantless entry? Couldn't be before because that would waste time when all they "need" is the above excuse.

The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. ... unless EXIGENCIES!

Well, they have to justify it to use the evidence during a motion to suppress hearing. If the evidence is deemed improperly seized through an improper search, then they face a lawsuit. If the prosecutor determines or believes there’s probable cause to charge, then a prosecutor can charge. We have a process for that in the United States.

[DGUtley]

Why does it start and stop with a lawsuit and never a criminal prosecution?

It may start with a criminal prosecution. I have seen it start with a criminal prosecution. It typically starts, however, with a civil lawsuit.

[Peter1469]

I don't know enough about this circumstance to know whether it was or wasn't justified, however, for educational purposes: One of the recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances exception, where “the exigencies of [a] situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393–394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). The exigent circumstances exception justifies a warrantless entry into a residence in certain situations, including when “immediate entry is necessary to stop the imminent loss, removal, or destruction of evidence or contraband.” State v. Karle, 144 Ohio App.3d 125, 131, 759 N.E.2d 815 (1st Dist.2001), citing Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 39–40, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). “For the exigent circumstances exception to apply, the state must establish both probable cause and ‘some real likelihood that the evidence is in danger of being moved or destroyed in the time that it would take to get a warrant.’ ” State v. Christopher, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009–08–041, 2010-Ohio-1816, 2010 WL 1660489, ¶ 32, quoting State v. Hatfield, 4th Dist. Ross No. 98CA2426, 1999 WL 158472, *5 (Mar. 11, 1999).

I do not do criminal law and I can't imagine the justification for arresting the minor but I'm curious what probable cause existed to believe that there was evidence or the girl in the house at the time. My guess is none. It sounds like a lawsuit is coming.

I tried several courts-martial that had that evidentiary issue. But because we worked with our law enforcement elements we gave then classes all the time on how to do it correctly. And I was called at all hours about advice as to whether they had probable cause. And after that was a military magistrate and got to handle the next phase of the criminal process: tossing crap cases; holding people in pre-trail confinement' etc.

[Helena]

Well, they have to justify it to use the evidence during a motion to suppress hearing. If the evidence is deemed improperly seized through an improper search, then they face a lawsuit. If the prosecutor determines or believes there’s probable cause to charge, then a prosecutor can charge. We have a process for that in the United States.

That's lawyer speak for "The $y$tem work$."

[Captdon]

"The state must establish"... when? After the warrantless entry? Couldn't be before because that would waste time when all they "need" is the above excuse.

The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. ... unless EXIGENCIES!

Cops can't do anything wrong in your eyes so...

[Helena]

Cops can't do anything wrong in your eyes so...

Did you forget this is in the serious section?