Which action is justified if an officer believes evidence is being destroyed?

When an officer believes that evidence is being destroyed, entering without a warrant is justified under exigent circumstances. The principle behind this is that the need to secure evidence and prevent its loss or destruction can outweigh the typical requirement for a warrant. This is based on the idea that waiting for a warrant in such situations could result in critical evidence being irretrievably lost.

Exigent circumstances allow for a prompt response when there is an imminent danger or risk associated with the preservation of evidence. In these instances, the officer must have a reasonable belief that evidence is at risk and that immediate action is necessary to secure that evidence.

The other actions listed do not address the urgent need to prevent the destruction of evidence. Waiting for a warrant would likely lead to the evidence being lost, and while calling for backup or setting up surveillance may be tactical responses, they do not provide the immediate intervention required in this scenario.