Did you even read the article? They searched his home twice after he had already shown he wasn't a danger to himself or anyone else and wasn't inside the house.

Did you even read the article? They searched his home twice after he had already shown he wasn't a danger to himself or anyone else and wasn't inside the house. The second time they trashed the place. The whole point of the article is that the US Court of Appeals says the exact opposite of what you're asserting here: the searches were not reasonable. "Because it was (and is) clearly established that law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an exigency justifies a warrantless search of a home, and because no reasonable officer could have concluded such a basis existed for the second more intrusive search, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity across the board."