A RARE VICTORY FOR PRIVACY AND COMMON SENSE

Creators Syndicate ^ | MARCH 26, 2006 | Steve Chapman

[jla]

Disappointed to hear that John Roberts failed this very simple test of conservative values.

Scalia and Thomas also dissented. Perhaps a more in-depth look at the case is in order before passing judgement on anyone's conservative values.

[kitkat]

***he 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.***

Agreed!

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[winston2]

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are marriage counselors, ministers, and legal means plenty for a spouse to remedy martial problems. Chances are - the wife was somewhat complicit to the contraband.

I know of several cases where a pissed off spouse or neighbor chose to use police bust of contraband to avenge for totally unrelated grievances. (So - who is the scum?)

There is no man so good, who, were he to submit all his thoughts and actions to the laws, would not deserve hanging ten times in his life.
Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne. (1533-1592)

[Know your rights]

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.

If they had drugs, they had to flush them and lose the money they paid (or were going to get) ... is that so far short of sufficient punishment that we have to violate the Constitution to make sure they're further punished?

[winston2]

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am further of opinion that it would be better for us to have [no laws] at all than to have them in so prodigious numbers as we have.
Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne. (1533–1592)

[Ken H]

So I guess LEOs will have to conduct a poll of everyone present in the home before entering, even the children.

If he had not objected, then search would have been allowed. I don't see anything that requires permission be obtained from other occupants. Did I overlook something?

[mysterio]

Good, good decision.

[JTN]

If he had not objected, then search would have been allowed. I don't see anything that requires permission be obtained from other occupants. Did I overlook something?

No, you didn't.

[goldstategop]

I agree. If the police think I committed a crime, they should go to the trouble of securing a warrant to search the premises of my place. If they don't, they're lazy in diligence and its not my job to make law enforcement's life easier or more convenient. As a citizen in a free country, I should have the right to say "NO" when the circumstances warrant it and when my interests would served by telling the authorities to wait til they get their warrant in hand.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[LibertarianInExile]

There is a reason this was a 5-3 opinion.

This ruling is a nightmare.

I am a libertarian. I believe the SCOTUS has bent far too directly to an authoritarian vision of the Constitution.

However, this is an opinion that will make it difficult for police to know when to bother with real crimes. It will cause nothing but more litigation. That is not the purpose of law, to decide on each situation as it occurs. The ideal law is a brightline rule society must follow, and those rules strictly enforced would present little or no discretion to police intent on harassment. However, here Souter says:

"W]here the defendant has victimized the third-party . . . the emergency nature of the situation is suchthat the third-party consent should validate a warrantless search despite defendant’s objections” (internal quotation marks omitted; third omission in original)). The undoubted
right of the police to enter in order to protect a victim, however, has nothing to do with the question in this case, whether a search with the consent of one cotenant
is good against another, standing at the door and expressly refusing consent."

Basically, he admits that in a domestic violence situation where there is disagreement over the search, the police may enter...but not in THIS domestic violence situation where there is disagreement over the search. In most situations where the police may confront domestic violence there are back-door ways around the search requirement--but not THIS situation. Breyer notes in his concurring opinion that "the Fourth Amendment does not insist upon bright-line rules."

But that is horseshit. Police work is based upon knowing the rules, and here, the court did not pick a rule at all. It is simply continuing the O'Connor reign of terror, now in the criminal law context. Any lawyer reading this knows damn well it'll create no certainty, just more lawyering, and that is why EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL on the court was for this opinion. It is an ABA dream opinion.

I don't agree with Roberts or Thomas 100%, but Roberts is dead-bang right in saying that:

"The rule the majority fashions does not implement the high office of the Fourth Amendment to protect privacy, but instead provides protection on a random and happenstance basis, protecting, for example, a co-occupant who happens to be at the front door when the other occupant consents to a search, but not one napping or watching television in the next room."

What does this mean for school lockers and drugs? What about all the other non-exceptions the same liberals have voted AGAINST? This is a nightmare, and again, the only people who should be happy with it are lawyers.

[Lancey Howard]

LOL!! Author Steve Chapman is beside himself with joy that a cocaine-using father beat the rap. Thank God the Supreme Court Hallelujah, and congratulations to Steve Chapman and the druggie. Common sense.

[LibertarianInExile]

One thing I forgot to add: If the majority wanted to strengthen the 4th amendment, they could have. If the dissent wanted to eviscerate it, they could have. The gutless majority didn't. The gutsy dissenters didn't either, because that was not at all their purpose in dissenting. Both Roberts and Thomas point out that this is lousy law. It follows neither precedent nor common sense, and we should expect both from the SCOTUS, not O'Connorish vacillation.

[Know your rights]

Author Steve Chapman is beside himself with joy that a cocaine-using father beat the rap.

Yes, let's throw out Constitutional protections for all so that we can punish more guilty people. Those Founding Fathers were clearly just druggie-coddlers.

[Lancey Howard]

Okay, I checked your homepage - - you're one of those anti-WOD warriors? A liberaltarian? "Uh, right, sir. Well, listen.... even though your girlfriend here says you're a cokehead and there's kids and drugs in the house, we'll go get a warrant and come back later. Just leave everything as it is, okay?"

[Brytani]

Ok, look at it this way. My husband and I both own our home. Both our names are on the title deed and both on the mortgage.

Who's rights trump who's? He has more right to allow/disallow entry into our home than I do, or do I have more right to allow/disallow entry into my home than he does?

Look at it this way, I can not call the police and have them forcibly remove my husband from the home (outside of clear cut abuse) because I decide he's not welcome in my home anymore. He has the right to enter into his own home. He can't do the same to me either. So again, who's rights trump who?

[Brytani]

In that case though, couldn't she produce evidence of drugs or child porn so the police could get a search warrant?

[robertpaulsen]

You do agree that a) the warrant would have been granted and b) the husband would have destroyed the evidence in the meantime?

Well, hey. As long as our constitution is safe.

[Know your rights]

"Uh, right, sir. Well, listen.... even though your girlfriend here says you're a cokehead and there's kids and drugs in the house, we'll go get a warrant and come back later. Just leave everything as it is, okay?"

Why would they have to leave? Leave one officer to make sure that no evidence leaves the residence, and that no harm comes to mother or children, while a warrant is obtained. If he's a cokehead, no way he can clean the place of all residue.

[Lancey Howard]

That's a good point.