State v Daugherty (1996) was significant for clarifying what aspect of search law?

The significance of State v. Daugherty (1996) centers on the concept of exigent circumstances in the context of search law. This case played a crucial role in establishing that law enforcement officers may conduct searches without a warrant under certain urgent situations where obtaining a warrant is impractical, and there is a clear need for immediate action.

Exigent circumstances typically involve scenarios where an officer believes that evidence may be destroyed, a suspect could flee, or there is a risk of harm to individuals, which justifies bypassing the usual requirement for a warrant. The ruling in this case reinforced the idea that while constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are paramount, there are necessary exceptions that allow for law enforcement to act promptly when facing significant risks.

In contrast, the other aspects mentioned do not capture the primary focus of the Daugherty case. The necessity of a warrant in every situation would not account for these urgent circumstances, while limits on law enforcement discretion and classification of evidence types, although relevant in broader contexts, do not specifically relate to the emergency conditions that were clarified in this significant case.