Please cite the case law to which you refer. In my reading I find that the police cannot do warrantless searches anywhere that an individual has "a reasonable expectation of privacy". The home would certainly qualify. Therefore, the only exception would be hot pursuit, but hot pursuit requires just that. Unless the police have an articulable reason for thinking the felons are in your house, it's not hot pursuit. In TAM's description, hot pursuit is questionable at best.WildBill wrote:You might think so, but that is not the case law.The Annoyed Man wrote:"Hot pursuit" means you (the LEO) SAW the bad guy(s) enter the abode. That was not the case in my OP. Police were looking for two guys whom they believed to be parole violators, and they were knocking on doors looking for them. They did not see the suspects enter the man's home. . . .or any other home, for that matter, or they would have obviously gone to that home directly.
With regard to the threats, those would qualify as a crime under the official oppression statutes (Texas Penal Code 39.03) unless the officers can provide a legal justification for their demand to enter the house. The statute reads "knows is unlawful" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Perhaps it should read "is unlawful". If the officers argue in court that they thought their actions were lawful, then the opposition would have to argue that they knew or should have know their actions were unlawful. Since TAM wrote "Cops threaten to smash his property and shoot and kill his dogs if they have to come back with a warrant", the Court might interpret that as the officers having knowledge that their request was unlawful and the threat would therefore be a violation of the law.
Personally, I would be a lot less likely to allow an officer to enter my house if I perceived him to be abusive than if he politely requested entry and explained his reasons for needing to do so. No matter how much adrenaline is flowing, I expect police officers to act professionally.