Well, if the locker is in (say) Sarah Smith’s name and Sarah Smith says she did not rent it then whose private property would they be breaking in to? If Ms. Smith, who “technically” is on the paperwork as renting it then is she free to give the police permission even if she says she did not rent it?
As an aside I would presume a warrant would be falling out of bed easy to get in this case. If one was needed not sure why the police just didn’t request one.
Brittany admitted that she had rented the locker as Sarah Smith. The police contacted Sarah Smith and confirmed that she didn’t rent it.
With those assurances in hand, they cut the lock. No warrant.
Well, you’re the attorney and if you say this needed a warrant I’ll not second guess you.
Still sounds like Brittany admitted to a crime of renting a locker under a false identity. The police confirmed it. Police cut the lock. Probable cause, due diligence. Sounds ok to me.
I guess I should answer your original question on this.
Assuming a warrant was absolutely required, no two ways about it, no exceptions (legally recognized exceptions as cited earlier) apply then yes, the evidence should be suppressed.
As I quoted Justice Stewart earlier: "The exclusionary rule places no limitations on the actions of the police. The fourth amendment does. The inevitable result of the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and its requirement that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause is that police officers who obey its strictures will catch fewer criminals. . . . T[hat] is the price the framers anticipated and were willing to pay to ensure the sanctity of the person, home and property against unrestrained governmental power."
That is the price we pay to protect our rights. I forget who said it long ago but our legal system is (supposedly) setup to see nine guilty people go free to ensure one innocent person does not get convicted. You and I are safer from police abuse of power when this is the case and the guilty maybe going free is the price we all pay for that.
I’m with Whack a Mole on this hypo as well. I don’t understand why this should require a warrant. To me, it would be like staying at someone’s home without his permission. You have no expectation of privacy in a storage locker that you more or less stole from someone.
But, if in other situations like this they make cops get a warrant, then they should have gotten one here.