“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...
“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book…
The writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath. But I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted…
In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed “to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects”; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King’s dominions. Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm.
In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us…
One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.” -—James Otis
“Every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” “Then and there the child Independence was born.” -—John Adams
How long does the denial of consent to search last? Up to the second the denier is dragged away in cuffs?
—Clearly a bad decision by the court.
“If the wife gives permission. Once permission is given to enter and search, it is given.”
Sure, and in a domestic dispute, it’s not unlikely that a wife will give that permission quite willingly if she sees a chance to maliciously harm her husband using the power of the state. Legalisms aside, in practice, the police can and probably will use this to their advantage to erode people’s liberty.