Well, I don't think he did ask you. And considering all of the more legitimate arguments against your claim, I think you lose.

#72 - Any why not? Someone may have seriously been getting raped, perhaps in the next apartment over. Just because you're not involved in it means you're not responsible? It's that kind of ignorance that could lead to deaths and other tragedies. There is nothing wrong with allowing for the police to search. I still don't understand why you disagree with what the police/OP did.

Ugh. It's fools like you who will gradually turn this country into a police state. There's no good arguments against my claim.

Hopefully your pants were back on when the cops came.

#78, well then you are both idiotic and self centered. Someone could be in trouble, you are impeding their safety. The simple possibility of that situation is enough to make it the reasonable and responsible thing to do to cooperate with the people trying to save them. You're an ignorant fool. If you're concerned about exercising your rights, great, you should absolutely go for it. But exercise the ones that aren't going to get someone killed. Petition against things you don't believe in, hold public forums to discuss the dangers of a police state, stage protests, but don't impose on other people's right to safety.

#78 - There aren't any good arguments because you don't have a claim. You simply repeat that he shouldn't have allowed the police in, but haven't offered any real reason as to why. Yes, he has the right to refuse if he wants to, because they weren't doing anything. But because they weren't doing anything, there isn't a reason to refuse. When you say something worthwile, then it will actually be an argument. Until then, we're just speaking the truth and you're just spitting out bullshit.

Nobody is getting killed, you moron. Quit making up stories that aren't happening. He knew nobody was being raped in his house, and therefore had no reason to allow the police in there, and had every reason not to. Ever heard of privacy?

Somewhat similar case was reviewed by the SCOTUS: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23scotus.html So yes, they can enter without a warrant. 'At least as interesting as the chief justice's opinion was a concurring opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, who began by declaring, "This is an odd flyspeck of a case."'

Good old tear rooms!

#81 - He has a reason to allow the police in because he has the right to consent to police search, just as he has the right not to. As stated before, the polcie were not the reason of the FML. As such, the police don't appear to be any inconvience to the OP. He was just being a good citizen and helping out the police who recieved a complaint about feminine screams. If he was worried about he privacy, then he didn't have to allow entry. Therefore, privacy obviously wasn't a concern.