Officers don't run with sirens to every call. TV shows don't provide a good overall picture of actual events.
And you're not giving them enough.
Some of us know (and respect) people in the law enforcement field.
[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]I could barge in yelling "Police! Police!"[/QUOTE]
As if you couldn't before?
[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]Something brought up in the article was how what was lost is security. You can feel secure that a cop isn't going to bust down your door unexpectedly at any given moment of the day.
And the freedom is against "unreasonable search and seizure." It's very reasonable to expect an officer of the law to identify his or herself, especially since taking the time to do so will almost never compromise an investigation. Some other things to consider are: repspect and the concept of "innocent-until-proven-guilty," as well as how part of the whole badge and warrent business is to prevent officer impersonation.[/QUOTE]
Are you familiar with the ruling? What it said is that evidence obtained by such search will not be automatically thrown out of court -- not that warning-less entry is going to become the norm. This ruling eliminates evidence suppression.
The whole warrant business is not to prevent officer impersonation...it is to prevent illegal searches.
Apparently nobody thinks things through in Scotland either.
![;)](../../smileys/wink.gif)
I believe most of you are not interpreting this correctly. The main focus is not to permit officers to "search freely", as most of you are assuming.
link
The individual in question may have been let off on a technicality, although he was still guilty. This eliminates exploitation of the justice system.