Posted on 02/25/2014 12:39:08 PM PST by Theoria
The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to law enforcement agencies by making it easier for police to search a dwelling without a warrant.
The court held on a 6-3 vote that police can search a home without a warrant, even if the suspect has objected, as long as he is no longer on the scene and a co-tenant gives consent.
It made no difference that the suspect, Walter Fernandez, had earlier objected to the police entering the apartment before police took him outside, the court concluded.
The ruling was a loss for Fernandez, who had wanted evidence found during the search, including firearms and gang paraphernalia, to be suppressed as a violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Fernandez appealed after he was sentenced to 14 years in prison for several offenses, including a robbery that prompted the police search. He sought the Supreme Court review after a California appeals court dismissed his claims.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the written consent form signed by the apartment co-tenant, Roxanne Rojas, made the search legitimate. If the court had not ruled for the government, lawful occupants would be prevented from inviting the police into their homes to conduct searches in similar situations, Alito said.
"Any other rule would trample on the rights of the occupant who is willing to consent," he added.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all dissented.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
So you can object, be taken outside, and other occupants consent to a warrantless search?
Keep pushing.
As much as I hate to say this, the creep should have walked.
Either the Constitution is law or it is not.
” ... to be suppressed as a violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures...”
Seems he wasn’t too worried about unreasonable search and seizure when he robbed someone.
Madness...
Yeah but it’s simple: get a warrant.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL of the U.S. says it is not. The President too.
Um, you realize that the Bill of Rights is binding on government, not [the] people, right?
Conservative majority decision. They’ve rarely seen a police power they didn’t like.
Correct. Nor do they cut back power to the prez, no matter the party.
I doubt that getting a warrant is ‘that simple’, but if they can’t convince a judge to sign a warrant, then they should follow the law.
In this case, it seems to be more of a ‘further defining’ the law. The issue came up, so they must deal with it.
Consent is easy with a gun in your face.
A gender vote:6 men vs 3 women.
Gotta admit: the women were right.
> The ATTORNEY GENERAL of the U.S. says it is not. The
> President too.
They have no legal authority to say so, and in saying so, they are in violation of their solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Problem is, people in this country are too fat, lazy, and stupid to do anything, or even care anything about it.
http://www.offthegrid.com/store/return-fire-felony-stop-shield-18x24/dp/2799?type=category&fa_id=185
/johnny
Yeah. Ya like how that works?
In other words the 4th Amendment is meaningless because some attorneys in costumes say so.
robes don’t make them Emperor Palpatine
Indeed, I invite the police into my house all on my own for searches all the time, practically every time I can't find my keys, doesn't everybody?
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.