They had NO "warrant", you back-peddling sycophant. They didn't even have reasonable suspicion. They violated the oaths they took, and proceeded to violate their citizens CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED Rights.
Maybe Storage Unit Dave with his high school education will understand if I just cut-n-paste like he does.
Exigent Circumstances: The presence of exigent circumstances will excuse the lack of a warrant. "Exigent Circumstances" are present, as a general rule, whenever there is no reasonable opportunity for the police officers to stop and take the time to get a search warrant.
-(See United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 107 [13 L.Ed.2nd 684, 688].)
Rule: "[E]xigent circumstances are present when a reasonable person [would] believe that entry ... was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
-(United States v. Alaimalo (9th Cir, 2002) 313 F.3rd 1188, 1192-1193, quoting Bailey v. Newland (9th Cir. 2001) 263 F.3rd 1022, 1033; United States v. Brooks (9th Cir. 2004) 367 F.3rd 1128, 1133, fn. 5, & 1135.)
"We have defined ‘exigent circumstances' to include ‘an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property ....'
-(People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3rd 263, 276 ...)
The action must be ‘prompted by the motive of preserving life or property and [must] reasonably appear to the actor to be necessary for that purpose.'
-(People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2nd 374, 377 ...)" (People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Cal.3rd 91, 97.)
"‘[E]xigent circumstances' means an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence."
-(People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 465.)