The problem has two sides. The point is that some argue that when a police officer enters a dwelling to conduct a search, the owner of a dwelling may ask to leave. Minnesota vs. Olsen is one of such cases. United States vs. Beck is another case when police officers conducted illegal search. Although, police officers managed to conduct a search, in the court it was proved that the search was illegal. On the contrary, there is a case Kentucky vs. King. Police officers tried to buy drugs from Mr. King. When they managed to do this, they followed the suspect and arrested him in his apartment. During the trial, it was proved that there were exigent circumstances. Brigham City vs. Stuart is another case when exigent circumstances took place. The peculiarity of the case is that it did not concern drugs, unlike the previous two cases. The Supreme Court agreed that police officers might enter a residence without a warrant if there was a strong reason to believe that an occupant was hurt or seriously injured.
The other side of the problem is the search in third person dwellings. In such cases, police officers do need a warrant for search and seizure. They should realize that it make give a suspect time to escape. However, in most of such cases, the search in the third person dwelling violate the Fourth Amendment. However, I should admit that not in every case. The case United States of America vs. Jesse Campbell is the case when the exigent circumstances took place. The prosecution managed to prove that in this case police officers did not violate the fourth Amendment.
Resources:
Brigham City vs. Stuart. 2006. Web. 27 Feb 2014
Minnesota vs. Olson. 1990. Web. 27 Feb 2014
Kentucky vs. King. 2011. Web. 27 Feb 2014
United States vs. Beck. 1981. Web. 27 Feb 2014
United States of America vs. Jesse Campbell. 2001. Web. 27 Feb 2014
