The thing is, it hasn't *ever* been the only way. Not once, in the entire history of law enforcement, has a warrant been required to enter private property. Maybe there's like special cases I don't know about, but cops prefer consent. Not just for legal nicety, but because it's inherently less suspicious.

I would also fiercely dispute a person saying there's no such thing as a reasonable probably cause entry. Like if cops come to your door and, upon you opening the door, they see billy-bob slitting the milk-mans throat in the kitchen. Or if they credibly believe someone's life is in danger.

Also, aren't cops allowed to lie to you to garner consent pretty much everywhere? I take exception to the attitude that just saying you have rights is a magic spell that should prevent your rights from being broken. Anyone can do anything and unless you're willing to actually *demand* a warrant (no matter what evil bullshit they tell you) you either fucked up, got caught, or have a nice paycheck coming to you.

Erm, yes, actually they do require warrants. Unless the homeowner consents to the search (and this man did not) or someone is in immediate danger (your hypothetical Billy-Bob example, which has absolutely no relevancy to this case) the police *always* require a search warrant. That's not a legally arguable quibble; that's not "magic, it's a Constitutional guarantee, and it is, quite literally, a Right.

Now, I'm not entirely clear what your meaning is here. Perhaps you're drawing a distinction between "legally able" and "physically able"? In this case, yes, I suppose the police are physically able to enter a home without a search warrant; laws can no more guarantee that police will always follow the rules than they can guarantee that citizens will always follow the rules. But any police officer who attempts to affect a search without probable cause (and probable cause, for home searches, is far more difficult to argue than it is in other circumstances) has acted outside the law, and can, should, and hopefully will, face criminal charges himself.

I agree with EvilHomer here. There doesn't appear to be grounds for the police to argue for an "exigent circumstance", in that there was no evidence that people were in imminent danger, that evidence faced imminent destruction, or that a suspect would escape. Therefore, a warrant would be required.

In this case, the police are not threatening the guy, just describing their rules of engagement as he's likely not familiar with them. While there are some truly wise and noble judges, a great many of them are of baser stock and will happily issue warrants with no oversight. Then comes the battering ram. This is legal, and even if they come up empty nothing will come of it, as the refusal to submit combined on your part combined with the obedience to authority on the juries part tends to find in the favour of His Majesty, BRooopidyDO! The Policeman.

His Majesty, The Policeman,
He's the children's friend at every bend, The Policeman
And you can bet your life, he's hip to Mack the Knife
That's His Majesty, The Policeman

You should never trip a policeman
Or try to hip or even tip a policeman
Get a ticket to the ball and you can't fight city hall
That's His Majesty, The Policeman

So remember their nobility
They're here, they're there, they're everywhere it's mobility
You can look near and far but they'll pin you by radar
That's Their Majesty, The Policeman

Here they come – hoo beh dee boop
The Man In Blue – hah bee de bop

The Sargent's there - ribbitty bip
The Patrolman too - hah bee de bop
The Chief looks great - hah bee de bop
The Captain's straight - ribbitty bip
Hip Hip Hurray - da da da dah
The Royal Crew - hah beh de bop beh dee bop

You always try to swing with a policeman
And never ring-a-ding a policeman
And if you're really hip you'll never make a slip
Against Their Majesties, The Policemen