|
It's not "F'ing" with the police to demand a warrant. It's more like dotting 'i's and crossing 't's. Modern life is based upon rules. Rules regarding search and seizure in the United States have been drilled into our collective consciousness during multiple redundant constitution lessons in K-12 school, in media shows, in newspapers, etc., ad infinitum. When any problem arises in life, either there is a rule for it to be dealt with that was devised in the past, or it's a new situation requiring a new rule. Search and seizure are not new situations requiring new rules, indeed, they are core rules or laws of police restraint and citizens' rights written into our founding documents.
While it's wonderful to idealize a world without rules and to live solely in the moment, making unique decisions at each moment, it is not the life we live in reality.
My personal belief is that I'm not going to be able to physically stop the police from entering my home if they don't have a warrant and they intend to enter anyway: I can only legally stop them. So, stating to them "May I see the warrant", and if a sales presentation follows, "Get a warrant". By making it very clear that they do not have my 'voluntary permission' to enter, then in the 'absence of a warrant' they become the lawbreakers.
I understand this lawbreaking can be prosecuted in court.
It is not difficult for police to get a warrant provided they have probable cause, indeed, my non-legal understanding is that it is nearly trivial for the police to acquire a warrant, they do it everyday. Were a search without a warrant to occur in someone's home, against the occupant's permission, those searching are the ones who will have crossed the line of legality, and they are the ones doing the "f'ing".
Requesting the rules be followed has nothing to do with "f'ing" with the police, at least from my viewpoint. Think of it more like, "Don't forget to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's!"
|