Cool.
On the off chance that I win the fight with 10% to 100%* fatalities on the Police present, who wished for a moment before they expired that they weren’t, would you still defend me? Need answer fast… 
Again, IANAL, but I would assume in cases where there is a preponderance of evidence and a serious threat to the public safety. For example say several bound, raped, and dead bodies are found in a guy’s basement, and evidence there also suggests that he may have other, still living prisoners. I doubt there’d be any restrictions on warrants to search his summer home, vehicles, mountain cabin etc. Again, not a lawyer, so I don’t know if police would even need a warrant at all in those cases.
Why wouldn’t they need a warrant? If they had time to look up ownership of his other property, they had time to file for a warrant. Plus, it would likely state “looking for bodies, abducted persons, tools for kidnapping and restraint” or whatever the legal jargon for that would be… Meaning unlikely evidence of tax evasion found in his files would be admissible.
IIRC the exception to a warrant is hot pursuit. If you didn’t see him go into the cottage just now, if you don’t know if he’s in there, or if you don’t hear victims screaming inside, how is it hot pursuit? Why would you kick in a door that may not be the right one and risk a lawsuit? Why would you risk having the perp go free because the evidence gets tossed out?
Tossing the book out and assuming the courts will back you is a very foolhardy move.
OP, how did matters play out in the game?
This being GQ, you probably shouldn’t. It is theoretically impossible to obtain a blanket warrant, since issuing judges are supposed to act as neutral gatekeepers to prevent unreasonable searches.
In practice, it can be very difficult to identify all the possible evidence of a crime or fruits of a crime with specificity, so warrants often specify broad categories of things (“firearms”) rather than specific ones (“a 54 inch Samsung plasma television.”)
You just ask them, and they need to produce, but real cops will probably produce their credentials whether you ask or not. Otherwise, as far as you’re concerned, you’re entitled to defend yourself as if it were a home invasion.
You’re talking about reasonable suspicion, which is what allows offers to investigate and apprehend someone even without meeting the definition of probable cause. If a police officer walks by an apartment and hears “Help!” and the sounds of something that sounds like someone getting beaten up, the law allows him to enter the home without a warrant, because he has a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed.
He might enter the home and find that it’s nothing more than a lady who fell in the bathroom and broke her own hip. Again, the officer’s entitled to enter in an emergency, especially if he thinks it might be a boyfriend beating the lady up. So then he goes in and finds that out that there’s no violent crime being committed. But then he notices the strong smell of burning like it might be a meth lab or something like that. The Supreme Court in a very contentious case actually ruled that he doesn’t need a warrant for that, either. He entered with reasonable suspicion, and now he’s going to initiate a search based on probable cause. He’ll get the warrant later. A judge will sign it.
Investigators might need a warrant to search other things like the lady’s car or a rental property that she occasionally visits. But police have a fair amount of latitude. Whether they should is another question.
No, he’s talking about exigent circumstances. Reasonable suspicion allows to officer to detain a person without a warrant. It does not allow an officer to enter a home or building. Even probable cause does not allow an unwarranted entry unless there are exigent circumstances (a reasonable belief that entry is required to prevent a violent crime or destruction of evidence generally suffices). Otherwise, he needs to go get a warrant and come back.
In Florida, here’s your standard
[QUOTE=Fl. Stat. 933.14(2)]
No intoxicating liquor seized on any warrant from any place other than a private dwelling house shall be returned, but the same may be held for such other and further proceedings which may arise upon a trial of the cause, unless it shall appear by the sworn petition of the claimant and proof submitted by him or her that said liquors so seized were held, used or possessed in a lawful manner, and in lawful place, or by a permit from the proper federal or state authority, the burden of proof in all cases being upon the claimant. The sworn affidavit or complaint upon which the search warrant was issued and the finding of such intoxicating liquor shall constitute prima facie evidence of the illegal possession of such liquor, and the burden shall be upon the claimant for the return thereof, to show that such liquor was lawfully acquired, possessed, held, and used.
[/QUOTE]
Remember, though, that the seizure of your liquor has to arise out of the search being executed, and at a minimum has to be in plain sight and evidence of a crime. So they can’t just come in looking for a stolen TV, open your liquor cabinet and pull out the scotch. It’d need to be seen in the course of looking, and it would need to be apparent that it was illegal (as when only minors are living at the residence, such as when in college, and therefore evidence of underage drinking).
I stand corrected. You’re right; exigent circumstances, not reasonable suspicion.
Carry on!