Posted on 03/31/2006 11:51:09 AM PST by JTN
Ping
Always deny consent to a search, and keep your mouth shut. Make them do their job.
Disappointed to hear that John Roberts failed this very simple test of conservative values.
Its sad to say, but a lot of so-called conservatives fail to see the need for privacy protection. Should it surprise us that the chief justice doesn't observe it either?
The average person, confronted with cops asking if they can search her house or car, would not realize she has a right to decline.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The average person may not know but I bet the criminal does.
This is not a question of convenience of law enforcement. The fact is that if you have contraband in your house and police have to get a search warrant the contraband will be gone by the time they return.
So let's see, man standing two houses away has no right of privacy but one standing in the doorway does? You see how screwed up its going to get and how police will not know what rules to follow? "Oh, no judge I was standing in the yard, not in the doorway."
News report of the arrest: "The defendant/victim of police abuse, claims that the police officer lied to justify an illegal search. According to the victim, he was standing on the sidewalk and not in his doorway. The illegal search took place at 4 a.m. There were several bystanders who confirmed the victims statement. The officer has had two reprimands for overstepping his authority. Several people have come forward to testify that this particular police officer has a reputation for lying to justify previous arrests. This newspaper is calling for the police chief take action against the officer for illegally searching for and finding fifteen pounds of cocaine in Mr. X's private living room, before typing out an affidavit, getting a judge out of bed, and serving the warrant on the victim prior to making a legal search of the living room."
If no one is home to deny access. Refer to the Patriot Act.
"The trial court rejected the claim because, it said, his wife had authority to admit police to their joint residence. But the Supreme Court took a different view: While she could have let them in when her husband was absent, he was present, and therefore had the right to bar their entry."
This is what the court said. Presence is what matters, not if you are standing in the doorway or not.
The requirement of a warrant protects the innocent, and, yes, the guilty. Our society is the better for it.
If I recall correctly, CJ Roberts argument was basicly why should there be a differentiation for someone "physically present in the entryway" who could deny entry, as the majority in this case ruled, versus someone "physically present" on the property, but in custody in the back of a police car in the driveway, who could not, as prior case law had determined. In both cases, the "significant other" gave permission to police to search. I believe his dissent had more to do with the Court failing to formulate a definition of "physically present occupant". See both US vs Matlock and Georgia vs Randolph for the slight difference. BTW, both cases are still valid.
I can see a lot of situations where this would infringe on the wife's rights. Say hubby is dealing drugs or child porn out of the house, which they share with their children, and she needs this documented for divorce/custody/child support proceedings. It's her house too, and she's trying to protect her children. She has a right to have her home searched if that's what she wants, and the right to have it searched before scummy-hubby gets rid of the evidence.
In your case, US vs Matlock would apply and she could invite the police in anytimr the hubby was not "physically present". BTW, there is a third case where the perp was asleep in the living room, but the Court ruled it was OK for the landlady to consent to a search, since he was not "physically present" to deny permission.
So you are saying the police will have a harder time apprehending people with contraband...how is that not a question of "convenience of law enforcement"?
Would you feel the same if it had been the man inviting the police in and the woman denying entry? Come on now and be honest. Or do you still think the man owns the house and the little wife is just another one of his possessions? Just curious.
That's always the risk, but if they are refused permission to search by an occupant they shouldn't search.
If they're afraid of the evidence disappearing, they can post officers to make sure nobody carries it out of the house.
This issue is not simple, I'll agree with you there. Both sides have good arguments.
Still, at this point I agree with the majority's decision. I think that whenever you have a tough call to make regarding civil liberties and individual rights, it's usually a good idea to take the side that gives less power to the government. I would hope most conservatives would agree with me, even if they are not comfortable with the consequences of that guideline in this particular case.
This was abused by the cops all the time.
You just put ANYONE into the house and then let the plant "authorize" the entrance to the house.
So I guess LEOs will have to conduct a poll of everyone present in the home before entering, even the children.
That's the position I took in a previous thread on this case. I think I was in the minority, though. There was one poster who took the position that if any search is not obviously unconstitutional, then it is constitutional. I take the opposite point of view.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, not necessarily statutes. There are 'way too many of those and they conflict.
The fact is that if you have contraband in your house and police have to get a search warrant the contraband will be gone by the time they return.
Contraband! Gasp!
So let's see, man standing two houses away has no right of privacy but one standing in the doorway does? You see how screwed up its going to get and how police will not know what rules to follow? "Oh, no judge I was standing in the yard, not in the doorway."
Sorry. I can extract no sense from this paragraph at all. Do you actually think that, since the court said "doorway", a person present must must actually be standing in the doorway?
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.