I agree; but it is possible to have a lawful order to control someone on private property. An example was the Boston bombing manhunt where police were doing door to door searches because there was a specific, articulated threat in a defined geographic area (note, I don’t know that’s the real legal test, but I’m sure it considers factors like that).

What you're calling for is the suspension of the rule of law.

No crisis justifies this unless you're willing to throw the whole thing out permanently. If you have a problem with a lack of police powers to compel house arrest without cause or to search without permission or warrant, write a new Constitutional amendment and get it passed.

That is a possibility, and one I think you need in a complex society. If police have a real threat of harm coming from inside a private home, they might need to enter the home before they can get a valid warrant. The problem is, police—-by doing the things in this video and though mistreatment of minorities—-are losing credibility (if they had any). Society needs to hold bad actors in police accountable so that we can be protected when they’re actually needed.

So your argument is that "different situations are different situations?" That is a solid justification for any action in this situation!

No, I was arguing against the parent comment. In this situation there were no exigent circumstances and so no expansion of what the law enforcement can do. I wanted to clarify that in special circumstances it is possible for a LE to order someone to move inside their house. You need consequences for this bad action so that the police have credibility to use the action in the proper situation.