Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Allows Disputed Home Search
AP ^ | February 25, 2014 | Mark Sherman

Posted on 02/25/2014 4:59:06 PM PST by Altariel

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.

The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: alito; donutwatch; nowarrant; samuelalito; scotus; search; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2014 4:59:07 PM PST by Altariel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Altariel; Travis McGee

Ping


2 posted on 02/25/2014 5:02:00 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

The continued flushing of our Constitutional rights is in full swing.


3 posted on 02/25/2014 5:02:06 PM PST by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Seems like another reason weighing against getting married nowadays. Wife gets mad at you? There goes your 4th amendment rights...


4 posted on 02/25/2014 5:03:24 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

“...may not object to a search when he is not at home.”

I didn’t read the article, but I hope this means that the occupant consents IS home that they can perform a search. (Still not right imho.)

I hope it doesn’t mean “Ok Frank, the guy just left for work - break down the door.”


5 posted on 02/25/2014 5:04:19 PM PST by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

It’s true of anyone. Parent, grandparent, child, relative, friend....

All it takes is one person saying “let them in, Boogieman, you have nothing to hide....”


6 posted on 02/25/2014 5:05:37 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Marriage is not a requirement for having your rights violated like a drunk prom date.


7 posted on 02/25/2014 5:06:18 PM PST by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

“We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Alito said.


8 posted on 02/25/2014 5:07:07 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Thats exactly what this is about.


9 posted on 02/25/2014 5:08:34 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

No. You might want to read the opinion first.

The ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf

The situation:

“Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding.

When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas’ oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery.

The trial court denied petitioner’ motion to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted.”

Also:

“Our cases firmly establish that police officers may search jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). In Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006), we recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search. In this case, we consider whether Randolph applies if the objecting occupant is absent when another occupant consents.”


10 posted on 02/25/2014 5:09:17 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
"and the resident who refuses access is then arrested"

WTF? It should take BOTH occupants' permission or all bets are OFF. How can one occupant's rights negate the rights of the other? This is a disgusting ruling. FUSCROTUS!

11 posted on 02/25/2014 5:09:56 PM PST by Obama_Is_A_Feminist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Your wife has always had the right to invite cops into your house. If you cannot trust her, why did you marry her?

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches.


12 posted on 02/25/2014 5:10:49 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Freepers ought to be careful about aligning themselves with Ginsburg, Kagan & Sotomayor...


13 posted on 02/25/2014 5:12:22 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

....and Alito took the ruling beyond “we need to catch a violent suspect.”

“We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Alito said.


14 posted on 02/25/2014 5:12:59 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

....and Alito took the ruling beyond “we need to catch a violent suspect.”

“We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Alito said.


15 posted on 02/25/2014 5:12:59 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Freepers need to always adhere to the Constitution, and not desperately defend a government employee because he / she is “conservative”.


16 posted on 02/25/2014 5:17:34 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_A_Feminist

So....if one occupant is committing crimes against the other, the criminal can veto the victim? Yeah. That makes sense.


17 posted on 02/25/2014 5:18:14 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Even this is defended.....


18 posted on 02/25/2014 5:18:56 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Yes. Indeed, an occupant who is in jail doesn’t have total control over a residence. Why is that a shock?

From Thomas: “Accordingly, given a blank slate, I would analyze this case consistent with THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent in Randolph: “A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it.”...That is because “[c]o-occupants have ‘assumed the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched.’”


19 posted on 02/25/2014 5:20:12 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

The Constitution does not protect you or anyone else from ALL warrantless searches. It never has, nor was it intended to do so. It does ban General Warrants, such as were used in colonial times to give the government unrestricted access to all colonial homes at all times.


20 posted on 02/25/2014 5:22:08 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lepton

Or if one occupant has dementia and says “okay” when the other occupant refuses to let the officer in without a warrant....

Be careful what you justify in the name of catching criminals. Be really, really careful.

Your liberty is at stake.


21 posted on 02/25/2014 5:22:12 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

But is this case consent to search was denied.

How long does the denial last, One second after he is removed?

- Bad ruling on rights. I would rather the guilty go free sometimes than have fundamental rights eroded.


22 posted on 02/25/2014 5:22:59 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

That is not the definition of “reasonable” as understood by the Founders.


23 posted on 02/25/2014 5:23:57 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


We are within striking distance for yellow!

Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!
Make a difference.
PLEASE Contribute Today!

Woo hoo!! And now over less than $450 to the yellow!!

24 posted on 02/25/2014 5:25:16 PM PST by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Triple

Exactly. And in today’s law enforcement climate, YOU are guilty of SOME crime. All that has to be done is find you in violation of some obscure law, and voila, arrest!


25 posted on 02/25/2014 5:25:40 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

True, but who among the common cohabitators is most likely to invite the cops into your home maliciously? I think the answer goes without saying.


26 posted on 02/25/2014 5:26:49 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Triple

The ruling deals with that issue. But frankly, as long as one of the legal occupants agrees, then what basis is there for rejecting a search of common areas? If someone with authority to say, “Come on in” says, “Come on in”, then what is the problem?

Don’t like it? Live by yourself.


27 posted on 02/25/2014 5:26:49 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Yuck, so the police can arrest you on a trivial charge. And then they can search your residence at will without a warrant?

This is a bad ruling.


28 posted on 02/25/2014 5:27:53 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Sure, but my reply #26 explains why my objection is a bit more specific.
29 posted on 02/25/2014 5:28:06 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

“That is not the definition of “reasonable” as understood by the Founders.”

Please learn what it was the Founders objected to before you assume you know their intent. What is unreasonable about a person entering property based on an occupant’s legal permission? Do you think my wife should need my written permission to allow anyone on to our property?


30 posted on 02/25/2014 5:29:26 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Which leads to an interesting thought exercise. What would signage do in this situation. Something like “Posted - No search of this location is allowed without a warrant”.


31 posted on 02/25/2014 5:29:38 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

“And then they can search your residence at will without a warrant?”

Well, yes - if your wife invites them to do so. Your wife has legal authority to invite someone on to your property.


32 posted on 02/25/2014 5:30:28 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

That’s not at all what it says.


33 posted on 02/25/2014 5:30:56 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
"I didn’t read the article, but I hope this means that the occupant consents IS home that they can perform a search. (Still not right imho.)"

I think you are right. They can't search a home without a warrant just because a person isn't home. But if one occupant consents, and nobody is there to object, then they can search. Be careful who you live with.

34 posted on 02/25/2014 5:31:25 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Your wife has always had the right to invite cops into your house. If you cannot trust her, why did you marry her?”

Well, I didn’t marry her, so there’s your answer to that one. However, from the way the article reads, it seems like the police couldn’t search the home if one present occupant objected, but now they can, if they arrest that occupant and get him out of the way.

The obvious consequence of this ruling that I foresee is that police will use this new power during domestic disputes. As soon as they get the man in cuffs, they won’t need any stinking probable cause to go on a fishing expedition against him.

“The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches.”

No, but it puts some limits on what warrantless searches are allowed, and this is another little chip knocked off those limits.


35 posted on 02/25/2014 5:33:50 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

One would need to have the mental capacity to give consent.


36 posted on 02/25/2014 5:33:58 PM PST by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I’m perfectly aware of what was objected to. I suggest you read up on your James Otis and John Adams.

You are willing to risk arrest if you say “no” and the “mrs” says yes?

Or will you say “yes”, only to have them seize on some trivial federal law of which you are unknowingly in violation, and therefore arrest you for that purpose. Or seize your property.

Either you work for the government, or you are incredibly naive about the reality of what can be done to a law-abiding American family.


37 posted on 02/25/2014 5:36:39 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I’m not sure I even see the controversy here. If the person on site is authorized to grant access to the property, and grants access... That’s reasonable.

I can see it getting dicey in the opposite situation... Where the person on site DENIES access to the search but someone else not at the scene grants access (like on the phone). Seems reasonable to me to limit the granting of permission to someone actually on site at the address.


38 posted on 02/25/2014 5:37:17 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Wow. What an horrific decision. This SCOTUS has done more to tank our Constitutional rights than any other in history.


39 posted on 02/25/2014 5:38:41 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Best comment I’ve ever read here. Amen.


40 posted on 02/25/2014 5:39:19 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

And you used to have the legal right to forbid it.


41 posted on 02/25/2014 5:39:49 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

A person with dementia would not have the legal authority to grant consent.

In general this wasn’t a hard argument, and I am surprised it was not 9-0.

The idea that one occupant could object to an entry, and then after he is arrested, the police would never ever be allowed to enter the house, is absurd. At some point the remaining occupant of a house has to have the right to invite police into the house.

Realize also that the police could clearly tell the occupant of the house what they were looking for, and the occupant could have legally brought the items out of the house.

It is silly and really unworkable to claim that a legal occupant of a house can never invite law enforcement into a house if some other occupant has ever said no.

The issue in this case was narrower — what if the person isn’t in the house anymore because they were arrested? Clearly the justices did not want the police to have the ability to simply detain the person objecting in order to get a search.


42 posted on 02/25/2014 5:40:16 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

Ahh, but the official excuse would be “we didn’t know a person with dementia lacks the mental caacity to give consent.”

After all, not too long ago, Seattle police claimed they had no idea that tasering a pregnant woman is wrong. (see Malaika Brooks).

The same excuse will be used again....


43 posted on 02/25/2014 5:41:21 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, I didn’t marry her, so there’s your answer to that one. However, from the way the article reads, it seems like the police couldn’t search the home if one present occupant objected, but now they can, if they arrest that occupant and get him out of the way.

Once an arrest is made they can search anyway. That's not new.

44 posted on 02/25/2014 5:41:42 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Altariel; All

Based on my understanding of this decision, isn’t the Supreme Court questionably assuming, in these times of widespread ignorance of the Constitution, that occupants are aware of their 4th Amendment-protected rights? Perhaps a 4th Amendment-equivalent of Miranda warning is needed?


45 posted on 02/25/2014 5:42:04 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Did you agree with the Kelo ruling also?


46 posted on 02/25/2014 5:42:28 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Triple
But is this case consent to search was denied.

Exactly. That is where I think the Court got this particular case wrong. The guy objected to the search. The cops knew he objected to the search. The cops arrested the guy, and removed him from the premises. Once they removed him (and his objection) from the premises, they proceeded to search, still knowing that he objected to the search.

Under those facts, calling the search a "consent" search seems an awful stretch, to me at least. Particularly since, once the guy was arrested, the risk of evidence destruction was nil, and they could have easily gotten a warrant to search the premises.

47 posted on 02/25/2014 5:44:05 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Altariel; Boogieman; Triple

“You are willing to risk arrest if you say “no” and the “mrs” says yes?”

My wife has ALWAYS had the right to invite people on to our property. If I say no one day, and then she later gives permission, her permission - coming last - prevails.

“However, from the way the article reads, it seems like the police couldn’t search the home if one present occupant objected, but now they can, if they arrest that occupant and get him out of the way.”

From the opinion:

“Our cases firmly establish that police officers may search jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). In Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006), we recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search. In this case, we consider whether Randolph applies if the objecting occupant is absent when another occupant consents.”

“As soon as they get the man in cuffs, they won’t need any stinking probable cause to go on a fishing expedition against him.”

If the wife gives permission. Once permission is given to enter and search, it is given.

“Did you agree with the Kelo ruling also?”

No. But when you side with Ginsberg against Thomas, Alito & Scalia, you MIGHT want to THINK first. Please note that in Kelo, the DISSENTERS were O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas...


48 posted on 02/25/2014 5:47:11 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Nice. Asshats. What was the last one they got right (citizens over trough-feeders)? Citizens United?


49 posted on 02/25/2014 5:49:17 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

An hour later, permission was given. You don’t think people ever change their minds? Nor was he arrested as a pretense to get him out of the way.


50 posted on 02/25/2014 5:50:16 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson