Entering the house constitutes a search.
You have yet to offer a single cite. I’ve offered close to a dozen. Please offer at least one before you ask me for a 13th.
I’ve already given you the cite for a legal definition of “search”. Please stop asking, when its already been given.
Here is another one for you to ignore.
Cite, please. If that does, don’t you think Moore would be perusing legal action? Maybe Loach or some other legal experts can weigh in on this, but for now I’ll settle for a cite that police entering a house constitutes a search.
Quit asking people for cites when you are completely unwilling to offer any of your own.
What I keep asking for is where you got that first definition you posted. Why won’t you tell me? You want me to concede that that definition is valid, right? So tell me where you got it and you may get what you want.
I never ignored your cites.
From your latest cite:
“governmental actions must invade a protected interest of the individual.”
There is no account that the police invaded the house. A reasonable conclusion is that the wife invited the police inside.
" In Supreme Court jurisprudence, physical manipulation by the police comes closest to a common sense understanding of what a search is."
Where is there evidence of police manipulation?
“This Article proposes that any intrusion with the purpose of obtaining physical evidence or information…”
Where was there intrusion?
Jesus fucking Christ. You do know that “invade” doesn’t mean “crash the fucking front door”, right??
This is just sad.
There’s nothing to cite unless you have a new definition of the word “search” and wish to use it in some form of debate. They came to his house and searched for the gun. They did this without a warrant unless you have evidence to the contrary. Since they had no warrant they were invited to leave.
Don’t bother. He has yet to offer a legal definition of the word “search”, and never will. Don’t stupidly engage him in debate like I did. Run like hell.
I’m not. He doesn’t understand that there’s nothing illegal about an officer on a fishing expedition. That doesn’t mean they didn’t engage in the activity. fortunately the guy in the article understood what was going on and stopped the process.
You think being invited in is an invasion?
It sure is.
Yes, there is. You claimed “entering the house constitutes a search.” Provide your evidence.
Cite, please.
So, they made a warrantless search but once asked to leave they complied?
The one you provided in post 122 was fine and worked against your claims quite nicely.
Does that mean you’re done or are you going to keep “stupidly engaging” me?
Actually, there can be. But I’m curious what it is I wrote that gave you that idea. What was it?
Quit asking for cites until you provide your own.
I’m done. I read enough of the thread to recognize a fuck stupid argument when I see it.
Muddying the waters a little… In some cases, a search really isn’t a search. This sometimes comes up in cases of safety inspections. If someone tells the Fire Department that you’re storing gasoline and old rags in your garage, then can come and inspect for safety violations, without a search warrant.
The deal is that they aren’t investigating a crime, but a situation that endangers the public. They won’t put you in prison if they find gasoline and rags; they’ll simply say, “Clean this up.”
I do not know if a child endangerment situation might or might not fall into the same sort of field. Do they need a warrant to intrude on a house in order to investigate a claim of child endangerment? I can see how it might be treated similarly to a search for immediate fire danger.
(A slightly more extreme case is when the Fire Department chop their way into your house with axes…because it happens to be on fire. Warrants never seem to be required in that situation either! The authorities don’t always need a warrant to go into a private home.)
If a police officer does not necessarily need a warrant to perform a search. They can also do a search just by getting your permission. So, no, there would be no reason for anyone to lawyer up, as the officers performed a perfectly legal search, ending the search when permission was withdrawn.
Here’s the first citation I found on Google. Here’s one with a video. This is what you guys should have been citing all along, BTW.
I recommend you refrain from speaking on behalf of others.
Who said a police officer needs a warrant to perform a search? Why would I use your cites?
I bought our 10 year old son a bolt action .22LR rifle last year. Posted lots of pics of him shooting it on FB. No one complained, which is to be expected.
A few weeks ago I purchased a .308 semi automatic battle rifle for him (metric FAL). He’s a bit too young to shoot it, but I figured I had better buy it now while it is still legal to do so. I haven’t yet posted pics of him holding it. I wonder what the reaction would be? Maybe I’ll do that next weekend. 
A search was begun. It was a warrantless search. A consent search is a type of warrant less search. In New Jersey we are not allowed to go on fishing expositions. To even ask for consent you need at least a reasonable suspicion. You also need to fully explain to the owner what consent means and that that it can be withdrawn. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances it needs to be in writing. In this case the police were not doing the search. There is no claim they were doing anything improperly. The police were there just for an escort. The DCPP worker was asking for the search. But our courts have ruled that as a government agency they must adhere to the 4th amendment too.
You don’t live in New Jersey.
Ipso facto post ergo hoc. Steps down from podium