Skip to comments.Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant
Posted on 02/27/2014 6:01:12 PM PST by Nachum
If the most disturbing, if underreported, news from yesterday, was Obama's "modification" of NSA capabilities, which contrary to his earlier promises, was just granted even greater powers as phone recording will now be stored for even longer than previously, then this latest development from the Supreme Court - one which some could argue just voided the Fourth amendment - is even more shocking. RT reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises. With its 6 to 3 decision in Fernandez v. California on Tuesday, the Court sided with law enforcements ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Makes it easy now.....the person at the door won’t consent to a search?
Arrest them, stuff them in the squad car and NOW you don’t need a warrant.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
So, if they take me out of my house, then they can search it without a warrant?
That must be based on a photon, of an emanation, of a penumbra, 'cause it sure as hell isn't in the text.
I didn’t think the US Supreme Court issued rulings this time of year. Aren’t they all released during summer in the final month of a court term?
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Part of what is being left out of this breathless reporting is that there was an occupant of the house who DID CONSENT to the police searching the house.
Camel's nose in the tent.
Dishonest headline. The court ruled that a wife can give the cops consent to search a house while the guy is in prison. Of course, if he hadn’t belted her first, she MIGHT have said no to the search.
Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding.
When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery.
The trial court denied petitioner motion to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted.
Our cases firmly establish that police officers may search jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). In Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006), we recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search. In this case, we consider whether Randolph applies if the objecting occupant is absent when another occupant consents.
And that just about closes the door. Bye Bye country I used to know.
A man and his girlfriend live at the same house. The police come and arrest the man. The police then ask the girlfriend for permission to search the house. She gives permission.
The girl lives at the house. She gave permission for the search, even though the man did not. I'm certainly no fan of police overreach, but I don't see any constitutional problem here.
And I feel even better that one of my heroes, Justice Alito, agrees with me.
All it is is this: if there is permission it does not have to be unanimous
Russia Today has scooped the Washington Times?
Kagen,Sotomayor and Ginsberg were the dissenters? F those other bastards.
Why Not?... If they can tax you on something you own... then you do not own it.. THEY DO...
Seems limited somewhat. If only one of two residents permits search, the other resident can’t keep them out. The case at hand isn’t clear cut. The husband refused a warrantless search but the wife later permitted it.
Sad when the liberals have more respect for rights than the “conservatives” who are apparently just statists.
Facts matter. Just as you can refuse permission for a search and then tomorrow grant that permission, however unlikely that change of heart might be, one roommate can refuse permission and then another roommate can later grant permission. I don't like it when the government works around the Bill of Rights, but in this case they were (barely) within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Now all they have to do is find a legal excuse to
remove the objector from the premises.
No, Russia Today has thrown us some red meat . . . pay careful attention to who falls for it.
Taking you out of your house would be a violation of the “persons” bit.
I don’t agree with this decision, but the characterization of this ruling is not very accurate.
It’s ALL a cartoon.
Say what you will about legal precedent, but if the “consenter” is unaware of the ramifications of a search they give up their rights.
Can you imagine the can of worms this opens? It gives the police every reason to persuade any occupant to consent to a warrantless search. In this case, I agree with the dissenting opinion of the minority. This is bad news all the way around.
Particularly when the entire opinion is available on line for you to read for yourself:
The police were in hot pursuit of a robbery suspect. He ran into an apartment, and the police heard screaming and fighting inside. When they knocked on the door, a battered and bleeding woman answered the door. She denied that anyone was in the apartment but her infant son. They asked her if they could conduct a protective sweep, and Fernandez then suddenly appeared and objected to a search. He was arrested for domestic assault and then was identified by the robbery victim and charged with the robbery also. Another officer returned to the apartment an hour later and obtained oral and written consent to search from the woman.
Not quite what it was billed to be.
More precisely, if only one of two occupants is there, then that occupant gets to decide if the cops come in without a warrant or not.
When folks side with Ginsberg to oppose Scalia & Thomas, then they OUGHT to look at the issue more closely. Scalia and Thomas are not idiots.
owner or occupant?
This case is not at all the way it is being presented to the public.
They HAD PERMISSION!
As many problems as there seem to be with police overreach and misconduct, we certainly don’t need to fan the flames with a non-existent problem!
Or so they said. I know the California courts and the police here. They are not always the heroes they are billed to be.
When you get arrested for beating the crap out of your wife, there are consequences. I’ve no real problem with this decision under the limitations posed by the facts.
No, but it’s from Russia Today, so you know it must be right.
This story is at least a couple days old, and reported already in U.S papers. We had a discussion about it a while back right here at FR.
Tyler is unlikely to “scoop” anything.
I read the decision
It appears there were two occupants of the searched dwelling. The woman that got the snot kicked out of her gave oral and written permission for the search. The guy that beat her up was arrested and later complained he never gave consent to search.
In the context of this particular case, I agree with the court ruling.
What bothers me is to what extent will the JBT’s take this ruling in their ruthless disregard for the Constitution?
How I miss the days when cops protected and served the people, not a political party or ideology.
Russia Toad Day via zerohedgeflunder ^ | 2/27/14 | Posted on 2/27/2014 9:01:12 PM by Naaaaacoestostadasaachum
RT reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that citizens may search a governor`s`s home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises, such as a governor`s whore, if in NY State.
Exactly. The camel's nose in the tent.
Thanks for the clarification
In this case, the “excuse” was the battery of the woman.
Tyranny and a debased culture go together and candy coated with legal pot for the sheeple
A good summary.
You all are looking a this wrong. In this instance it was the correct call. If one of the occupants gives permission then that is all that is necessary. Especially since in this case there was already probable cause because of the possible domestic abuse.
Find something to really get pissed about. This isn’t it.
But it does go to show, get it straight with whoever (whom ever?) you are cohabitating with — no warrant thingy — no searchy.
Guess it is okay then to shoot to kill all intruders that intrude into one’s home.
Kind of a shame though as we pay these police to PROTECT our homes.
Oh well, the Courts must know what they are doing - - - - .
King George III of England would be so proud - - - - .
yeqh but they are hoping to use fear and police intimidation to get the woman to say ‘okay’ or something bad may happen to your husband.
don’t think it won’t be used this way. they shoot dogs for less.
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.