“The police had every right to enter to protect the wife and the husband had no right to prevent the police from entering under those circumstances.”
I don’t want to be unnecessarily picky, but I want to point out that the “police” as agents of the “state” don’t have “rights.” Citizens have “rights: not the state - it only has “authority.”
The police “may”, by the circumstances (probable cause provided by 911 call), have “authority” to enter and render protection to a citizen. However, it is not a “right.”
This is not an easy nut to crack. I can see both sides to the issue. I believe this could set a bad precident that overextends police “authority” at the cost of a citizen’s “rights” under the 4th Ammendment. However, were the woman trully in imminent danger....where obtaining a warrant is not possible....should the police have the “authority” to enter? (I don’t care what courts have said - what would the Founders say? I don’t have a clue.)
I want to place limits on police authority, but not to the point where it endangers a citizen....so this is a tough one.
“Exigent circumstances” trump everything.
everything comes out in the wash later.
however, an exigent circumstance for one does not broadly apply automatically to everyone.
You are right, they do not have a "right" to enter the house under these circumstances. They had an OBLIGATION to enter the house under these circumstances.
But you can't really make it about the particulars of this case. This case is actually pretty easy. The woman was a legal resident of the home and authorized the cops to enter. Another resident shouldn't be able to resist their entry under those conditions. I'm sure the founders would have said that the cops should have the authority to enter in this case, but that hardly justifies the epic tangent the Indiana Statist Supreme Court went on, saying that even illegal entries must not be resisted, so long as they're perpetrated by cops. Ludicrous.