Supreme Court considers police searches

ap on Yahoo ^ | 11/08/05 | Gina Holland - ap

[GeorgiaDawg32]

I thought NO meant NO..isn't that what we've been taught for umpteen years??

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

"Michael Dreeben, an attorney for the Bush administration, which backs police in the case, said people should be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement. " In other words, "We're from the Government and we're just here to help you. Trust us."

[GrandEagle]

NOW, FINALLY a case fit for Supreme Court Review.Personally I would say that any NO trumps any yes. However, I can live with what the court says here. IF the police had just cause to search, then they would have had a search warrant.
Interesting to see how this one pans out.

[mtbopfuyn]

Yeah, but don't you know, now days it depends on the meaning of NO.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Our system of laws are based on the English common law. Under English common law a man's house is sacred from government search.

KEEP OUT!

[GeorgiaDawg32]

if you have nu zing to fear, you vill open zee door and let us search

[downtoliberalism]

... a man's house is sacred from government search...
---

Fine. Have a meth lab, child abductor, etc. move into your backyard.

[GrandEagle]

Fine. Have a meth lab, child abductor, etc. move into your backyard.

Amendment IV The US Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Should be no problem to do it LEGALLY

GE

[downtoliberalism]

...Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant...
---

I would say that they did.

[planekT]

Michael Dreeben, an attorney for the Bush administration, which backs police in the case, said people should be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement. "Come on in boys, the coke's over there, right next to the pile of pirated DVD's." Yea, that's a good one. Any good defense attorney will tell you to forget your Constitutional rights and cooperate with the law. /s Note that the woman had moved the kid to Canada and was just picking up her things. Technically it might still be her residence, but clearly she was no longer living there. Bottom line for me is, one no and one yes doesn't equal a yes. Police should have gotten a search warrant first.

[L98Fiero]

OK, they can only search HALF the house.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Just a general observation. The article breathlessly mentions that Justice Thomas actually asked a couple of questions and seemed (in the mind of the reporterette) to be leaning in favor of the police. She then quotes several of the Justices but doesn't include one from Justice Thomas. The other observation is that, if specific seats on the Court now represent different constituencies, Justice O'Connor is ably representing the clueless.

[L98Fiero]

"Bottom line for me is, one no and one yes doesn't equal a yes. Police should have gotten a search warrant first."

So, a no and a yes equals a no?

[unixfox]

Still stomping on the Constitution I see. I hope these bastards are watching their backs. They will rue the day.

[Cboldt]

Supreme Court of Georgia - Case below (short)
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/s04g0674.pdf

One "no" trumps consent. The Georgia Supreme Court opinion has a dissenting opinion of three Justices who say that one "yes" constitutes permission.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067Pet.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067Resp.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067PetReply.pdf

Links directly above are the briefs.

[sourcery]

Seems clear enough: Only the effects of those who consent to the search should be searchable, and anything found that relates to a party who did not consent would not be legally actionable.

[GrandEagle]

said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

In rereading the amendment it didn't say "unless the officer believes a search warrant would be issued."

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks for the links.

[GrandEagle]

A NO and a Yes, and a YES and a YES and a YES ....
STILL = NO!
IMHO