I'm not sure this is the issue you think. If the police arrest someone on shaky pretense, then the resultant search could be argued to produce only the fruits of the poisonous tree by a skilled lawyer. Enough of those create precedent, and a justifiable reason for cops to start being careful in who they arrest.
In those cases where a cop has a legitimate reason to arrest and then come back for the search, a. they'll have plenty of time to get a warrant (and will do so), or b. the circumstances of the arrest will justify it beyond the above described "poisonous tree" appeal. In cases where the cops suspect a crime in progress, there's plenty of case law supporting spur of the moment permission to search.
Also, why would a woman be expected to side with anyone, especially when the women in question know full well the gravity of their opinions? You don't choose to affirm or dissent as lightly as that when your word has a profound effect on the law. They're smart enough to know that their opinion will carry far beyond the bounds of this case.
no subject
In those cases where a cop has a legitimate reason to arrest and then come back for the search, a. they'll have plenty of time to get a warrant (and will do so), or b. the circumstances of the arrest will justify it beyond the above described "poisonous tree" appeal. In cases where the cops suspect a crime in progress, there's plenty of case law supporting spur of the moment permission to search.
Also, why would a woman be expected to side with anyone, especially when the women in question know full well the gravity of their opinions? You don't choose to affirm or dissent as lightly as that when your word has a profound effect on the law. They're smart enough to know that their opinion will carry far beyond the bounds of this case.