Devil Devlin charges, and did police actually have probable cause a day earlier?

Michael Devlin, the man arrested for abducting two Missouri boys, has been charged with 69 counts of forcible sodomy. Seventeen of those counts related to the January abduction of a 13 year-old boy. The rest related to the 2002 abduction of a then eleven year-old boy. The 13 year old held for about four and a half days in Devlin's apartment was allegedly sodomized about four times a day. Interestingly, one day before the two boys were rescued, authorities knocked on the door and spoke with both Devlin and the older kidnapping victim, Shawn. They did not have probable cause to enter the apartment at that time as they did not recognize Shawn as one of Missouri's missing children (nor did Shawn accurately identify himself, which is not surprising considering the abuse he endured and the fact that Devlin was present at the time).

Unfortunately, the officers had to leave. The younger kidnapping victim remained in the apartment for roughly one more day and was subjected to about four additional sexual assaults during that period. I can only imagine what that child's parents must be feeling -- knowing their son was only a few feet away from officers a day before his rescue and that those officers had to turn around and leave, allowing their son to be molested FOUR MORE TIMES, must drive them mad.

As sad as this case is, it could have been much worse. The boys were lucky that Devlin did not decide to dispose of the evidence after receiving a knock on his door from police. That delay of one day cost the younger boy additional sexual assaults and could have easily resulted in their deaths.

I'm not blaming law enforcement, but I believe some measures have to be taken to protect children in these circumstances. Eavesdropping techniques could be employed to verify the presence of another child. On the extreme side, a superficial visual inspection of rooms would have saved the two boys that day. The law didn't allow it, they authorities have said, but perhaps it does. There is a well-known exception to the requirement that a search must be supported by a warrant. That exception is known as "exigent circumstances" and one way it arises is if an officer needs to enter a home to prevent harm to a third person (though such an entry still must be supported by probable cause).

I'm not saying officers should be able to enter an apartment on a hunch, but when a truck matching a description of one seen at the site of an abduction is found registered to a man in an apartment, who answers the door with a boy matching the description of another missing boy from years ago, with the same first name, perhaps that might actually give rise to probable cause, Constitutionally speaking, for a minimally-invasive and quick visual inspection of the ONE additional room (the bedroom) in that tiny apartment.

We're talking one minute. "Excuse me, Mr. Devlin, we believe we have probable cause to go look in your bedroom. We're searching for a 13 year old boy, so we won't touch very much, and we won't need to look in your underwear drawer." It would take them less than a minute to walk in, open the bedroom door, and look inside.

Another possibility: Arrive on scene with a trained search dog. Dogs are quite adept at identifying and tracking scents. Ben's scent would have been heavy inside the apartment and even outside leading up to the apartment (though days old). Search dogs have been able to detect blood cleaned up weeks ago and track scents that are just as stale. I realize a department might not have such resources, but there are generally a pool of volunteer Search and Rescue folks available to respond on a moment's notice to a call.

Walking up to a door and knocking on it with such a dog at your side is not against the law, and having that dog alert to the presence of a specific odor would give rise to probable cause.