BTW, missed something on first read ~ the guy's wife was KICKING HIM OUT. She placed a 9/11 call on him. He told the cop there was no further problem because, as he picked up the bag of stuff his wife had just tossed at him out in the parking area, he had his stuff and was leaving.
That's the point when the guy went back into the apartment. His wife (they were breaking up so she's still his wife) told him to give it up ~ don't try to stop the officer(s).
She let them in.
This is one of those multi-party tenancy things where everybody walking around has a right to enter or authorize entry.
The Court didn't say, but most likely they were focused on the "reasonableness" of an officer entering a dwelling when, in fact, he'd been invited in by one of the residents.
That would be the only factor involving the question of "reasonableness". Future decisions will focus on that point even though the court didn't dwell on the matter ~ they will undoubtedly IGNORE THE REST.
Not likely Indiana cops are going to just bust in your house without a warrant, but Fur Shur if somebody let's one of them in, don't touch.
Now, another point, DON'T LET A COP IN until he shows his warrant.
The fourth amendment is dead.
Agreed.
Granted, she did call 911. I'm not trying to nitpic, yet according to the link you provided:
"Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don‘t do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖"
Domestic disputes are the worst. It's a fine line given that the behavior that caused her to call (husband trashing the apartment). I still have my doubts the LEOs shouldn't have handled it differently given what's written about the circumstances.
This sets a precedent; it is a tool to be used elsewhere and in a different manner. None of it to our advantage.