Comment by chatmasta
2 years ago
> realistically you just have to let them in anyway
No, you don't. If they have a warrant then you need to let them in for the purposes specified in the warrant. Otherwise you're free to tell them to piss off. Unfortunately you're also free to acquiesce to any of their demands.
This kind of passive, default-compliant attitude from service providers, while understandable from a "path of least resistance" standpoint, is exactly the kind of behavior that allows the third party doctrine to circumvent so many of our basic rights. As a service provider, often the more difficult path is to challenge authority, rather than to cooperate with it. And unfortunately that means that most service providers will simply cooperate.
> No, you don't. If they have a warrant then you need to let them in for the purposes specified in the warrant. Otherwise you're free to tell them to piss off.
Any lawyer will tell you - if law enforcement attempts a warrant-less search, you tell them you do not consent to it, but you do not attempt to physically stop them from performing it. Tell them they are unwelcome and to come back with a warrant, but if they insist on entering in spite of that, you let them in.
"Letting them in" is another way of saying you consent. Don't "let" them in... just don't physically stop them coming in.
If you unlock a door for someone but simultaneously say “I don’t consent to you passing through it”, the first act does not cancel out the second. Whereas, if you don’t unlock it, if they really want to go in they’ll knock it down, causing damage in the process. Unlocking it for them is about avoiding damage to property, it is not a form of consent if accompanied by a clear verbal refusal of consent
Non-compliance with a law enforcement order is a good way to get shot (in America) or arrested (in most countries) even if there is no legal basis for the order.