The current legal thinking about the 4th amendment does have some exceptions to the requirement to get a judge to issue a warrant first.

From webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_cir....

Quote:

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The exigence of existing circumstances is a mixed question of law, diction, and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.

Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.

Thinking out loud: Telephonic warrants are allowed in current law. How is this affected by the Federationist Platform?

-BigCowboy

Probable cause (and by extension exigent circumstance) are already in the platform.

However, error remains chargeable against the law enforcement agency where today it is not. That is, if the agency obtains a warrant for 123 South Street and then kicks down the door at 125, and an officer is shot by the homeowner who has committed no offense justify a search of THAT residence, the LEO is ****-outta-luck.

The platforms provides for search and seizure under the Constitution but no freebies if they **** up and get hurt or worse, or if they shoot an innocent person in the wrong place. The invasion into someone's home, property or person is an extremely serious matter; if it is conducted unlawfully then it is armed invasion, assault, breaking and entering or whatever other offense it would be absent said lawful process.

Refusing to submit to a search should not be conciderd probal cause. Police searching for personal gain ie siezures has a proven track record going back 1000s of years. Thats my take on why the 4th was put in.

I forget which other case, but refusing to show ID on demand - without any evidence of any crime, wrongdoing, other probably cause - can get you arrested and that was upheld by the supreme court. - google provides:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liber....

There's also the "reasonable suspicion" that the drug and other laws allow police to seize property (the property is under arrest, it doesn't have rights, and you have to post a bond to sue the police to get it back, and it is not "reasonable doubt", but a lesser standard).

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp

Again, the platform is clear as regards the 4th Amendment.