Actually, it isn't really scary; that is how the law should be.
The point of that law is not to let police do what they want, it is to prevent citizens from trying to physically stop them themselves.
Look at this scenario - the police come to your front door and demand entrance. You clearly state they may not search your property without a warrent. They say "We don't need no stinkin' warrent!" and draw guns, telling you to step aside.
The intent of the law is to make it clear that it is NEVER ok to obstruct police officers who believe they are acting for the state. You step aside, smile, and let them tear up your house. You call the ACLU in the meantime, file about 9 civil suits against the police, and get rich, but you DON'T try to stop them from carrying out their duty.
In the case where you disagree about legalities with police, the law leans towards police until it is sorted out in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it isn't really scary; that is how the law should be. The point of that law is not to let police do what they want, it is to prevent citizens from trying to physically stop them themselves. Look at this scenario - the police come to your front door and demand entrance. You clearly state they may not search your property without a warrent. They say "We don't need no stinkin' warrent!" and draw guns, telling you to step aside. The intent of the law is to make it clear that it is NEVER ok to obstruct police officers who believe they are acting for the state. You step aside, smile, and let them tear up your house. You call the ACLU in the meantime, file about 9 civil suits against the police, and get rich, but you DON'T try to stop them from carrying out their duty. In the case where you disagree about legalities with police, the law leans towards police until it is sorted out in court.