Skip to comments.
Supreme Court considers police searches
ap on Yahoo ^
| 11/08/05
| Gina Holland - ap
Posted on 11/08/2005 2:14:12 PM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 next last
To: NormsRevenge
If the husband had said no on a previous police visit would that still be in force if the police arrived when only the wife was at home and she permitted a search.
If there is a way to get her name in the history books you can count on SDO to do it no matter how poorly her opinion stands in the light of the constitution.
21
posted on
11/08/2005 2:45:14 PM PST
by
em2vn
To: em2vn
would that still be in force if the police arrived when only the wife was at home and she permitted a search.
IMHO - No
To: GrandEagle
I think a "no" and a "yes" cancel each other out, which is essentially a "no". Warrant needed, IMO.
23
posted on
11/08/2005 2:49:18 PM PST
by
L98Fiero
To: NormsRevenge
Chief Justice John Roberts worried that if a home had 10 occupants, all 10 would have to agree before a search.No, Judge Roberts, only the judge signing the warrant would have to consent.
This should really be an easy case if not for judges on the left and right trying to score political points. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against searches and seizures without a warrant. The right is absolute, without exception. Although I have the right to waive the warrant requirement and consent to a search, a waiver has to to be unequivical and consenual. Where two or more people own real property then both must consent because neither has the right to waive the fourth amendment on behalf of another person, particularly when that other person has clearly stated that they don't consent. End of case.
To: NormsRevenge
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.That's the scarier part.
To: NormsRevenge
26
posted on
11/08/2005 2:52:31 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: L98Fiero
It doesn't equal a no or a yes. Should the cops get to pick which answer they like the best?
27
posted on
11/08/2005 2:53:33 PM PST
by
planekT
To: GrandEagle
...led officers to evidence later used to charge her husband with cocaine possession...
----
I can't believe that you would rather have a drug addict living in your backyard all because he had the drugs inside his house and doesn't want to invite the police into his home and find them. I doubt that most criminals are going to invite the police in and find their evidence.
I don't want the police invading a home anytime they like, but when they are being told there is contraband inside a home, and are being asked to retrieve the contraband, that they should have to still wait and ask every occupant of the home if it is okay or not.
28
posted on
11/08/2005 2:54:46 PM PST
by
downtoliberalism
("A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform,")
To: L98Fiero
I think a "no" and a "yes" cancel each other out, which is essentially a "no". Warrant needed, IMO. Agreed. It doesn't equal what they need to enter without a warrant, which is "permission".
29
posted on
11/08/2005 2:57:09 PM PST
by
planekT
To: L98Fiero
Unless there are unusual circumstances, I don't see how one person can waive the privacy rights of another.
30
posted on
11/08/2005 2:58:47 PM PST
by
Enterprise
(The modern Democrat Party - a toxic stew of mental illness, cultism, and organized crime.)
To: Enterprise
31
posted on
11/08/2005 3:01:02 PM PST
by
L98Fiero
To: L98Fiero
I've been sitting here thinking about your question. Lets say that the police just show up and ask if they can look inside. If only one spouse is home, then a yes would be a yes, however; if they had previously requested a search and the spouse said NO, then it would have to be a no no matter what the spouse who happened to be at home said. After all, if they really had cause to search, then they could get a warrant and wouldn't have to shop for answers.
To say that police would need a yes from any and all who lived there, well, there would never be any searches because if the consented to search turned up something, then the perp would just need to find someone who claimed to live there to get the evidence thrown out.
I would have to say that any NO from any source who was at home would be a no, but a yes from all who are at home upon the initial contact (i.e. the police are not shopping for a yes), would constitute a yes.
To: downtoliberalism
I can't believe that you would rather have a drug addict living in your backyard all because he had the drugs inside his house and doesn't want to invite the police into his home and find them. Honestly? I would rather have a drug addict living next door than give the police the power to search my house without my consent and without a warrant.
33
posted on
11/08/2005 3:03:27 PM PST
by
Palisades
(Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
To: downtoliberalism
Sorry, believe it. If they had reason to believe there was criminal activity then they could easily get a search warrant. To have it any other way... well, the cure would be far worse than the disease.
either we make the government obey the rules, or there are no rules.
Cordially,
GE
Comment #35 Removed by Moderator
To: al kafirun
So we follow the Fourth Ammendment unless it would be annoying to do so. What a lovely strict Constitutionalist he's turning out to be. Justices like to ask a lot of questions to test the lawyers' positions. Such questions are not necessarily indicative of the Justice's position on the matter.
36
posted on
11/08/2005 3:09:54 PM PST
by
Palisades
(Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
To: NormsRevenge
If the husband says no, but the wife says yes, then anything incriminating that's found should be usable against the wife, but not the husband. Move over, Solomon.
37
posted on
11/08/2005 3:12:54 PM PST
by
Mr Ramsbotham
(Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
To: NormsRevenge
The dispute arose in 2001 when police in Americus, Ga., were called to a domestic dispute at the home of Scott Fitz Randolph and his wife, Janet. This is enough for it to be fairly certain a judge would be willing to issue a search warrant.
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.
Combined with the above mentioned likelihood of a warrant being issued if requested, this stipulation from the defense is enough to make this clearly a case of inevitable discovery even if the search were to be deemed unconstitutional.
Several justices seemed sympathetic to the police, raising concerns that limits on searches would hamper domestic disturbance investigations.
This is reason enough to recognize that granting the power to refuse entry to the suspect by denying the victim the right to request police assistance would be a miscarriage of justice.
Bottom line: this case shouldn't have even made it to the Supreme Court.
To: L98Fiero
I hear the "no" in your voice, but I see "yes" in your eyes (bloodshot from all the lines of coke you've been snorting).
/s
If there's a domestic disturbance situation, one "yes" trumps all the "no"s, especially the nose full of cocaine.
IMHO
39
posted on
11/08/2005 3:28:27 PM PST
by
MooseMan
To: Mr Ramsbotham
If the husband says no, but the wife says yes, then anything incriminating that's found should be usable against the wife, but not the husband. Move over, Solomon. Even in a case where the wife is the reporting victim and the husband is the suspect?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson