Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant
Russia Today via zerohedge ^ | 2/27/14 | Russia Today Tyler Durden

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 enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.

(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: 1dontsearch; agitprop; court; demagogicparty; fairnessdoctrine; impeachnow; police; pravda; putinsbuttboys; rules; russiatoday; singlepartystate; supreme; tylerdurden; tylerdurdenmyass; yesterdaysnews; zerohedge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
America devolves further
1 posted on 02/27/2014 6:01:12 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.
How convenient.


2 posted on 02/27/2014 6:03:35 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


3 posted on 02/27/2014 6:03:52 PM PST by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

F them


4 posted on 02/27/2014 6:03:56 PM PST by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman

5 posted on 02/27/2014 6:05:34 PM PST by Benito Cereno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
more Barbara Streisand, from the (Marxist) USSC, our country is gone. :-(

6 posted on 02/27/2014 6:05:38 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

7 posted on 02/27/2014 6:06:10 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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?


8 posted on 02/27/2014 6:07:06 PM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The actual case depends on the fact that an occupant of the home did in fact give the police permission to enter and conduct a search. The title is misleading and tendentious.
9 posted on 02/27/2014 6:07:21 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Bump


10 posted on 02/27/2014 6:07:21 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

11 posted on 02/27/2014 6:08:53 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

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.


12 posted on 02/27/2014 6:09:22 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
The actual case depends on the fact that an occupant of the home did in fact give the police permission to enter and conduct a search. The title is misleading and tendentious.

Camel's nose in the tent.

13 posted on 02/27/2014 6:09:55 PM PST by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.

The ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf

The situation:

“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.”

Also:

“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.”


14 posted on 02/27/2014 6:10:52 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

And that just about closes the door. Bye Bye country I used to know.


15 posted on 02/27/2014 6:10:59 PM PST by MarMema ("If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it." Ted Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I read the headline of the article and got upset. Then I read the entire article. I'm not so upset now.

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.

16 posted on 02/27/2014 6:11:38 PM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

All it is is this: if there is permission it does not have to be unanimous


17 posted on 02/27/2014 6:12:00 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

18 posted on 02/27/2014 6:12:24 PM PST by Manic_Episode (GOP = The Whig Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Color me confused.

Russia Today has scooped the Washington Times?

19 posted on 02/27/2014 6:13:07 PM PST by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Kagen,Sotomayor and Ginsberg were the dissenters? F those other bastards.


20 posted on 02/27/2014 6:13:10 PM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Why Not?... If they can tax you on something you own... then you do not own it.. THEY DO...

You’re renting..


21 posted on 02/27/2014 6:14:10 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.


22 posted on 02/27/2014 6:14:18 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csvset

Sad when the liberals have more respect for rights than the “conservatives” who are apparently just statists.


23 posted on 02/27/2014 6:14:27 PM PST by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
"The actual case depends on the fact that an occupant of the home did in fact give the police permission to enter and conduct a search. The title is misleading and tendentious." Camel's nose in the tent.

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.

24 posted on 02/27/2014 6:14:34 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
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

Now all they have to do is find a legal excuse to remove the objector from the premises.

25 posted on 02/27/2014 6:15:06 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

No, Russia Today has thrown us some red meat . . . pay careful attention to who falls for it.


26 posted on 02/27/2014 6:15:27 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Taking you out of your house would be a violation of the “persons” bit.


27 posted on 02/27/2014 6:15:54 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I don’t agree with this decision, but the characterization of this ruling is not very accurate.


28 posted on 02/27/2014 6:16:10 PM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csvset

It’s ALL a cartoon.


29 posted on 02/27/2014 6:16:11 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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.


30 posted on 02/27/2014 6:16:37 PM PST by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I don't know if I would rely on something called "Russia Today" for an honest report of a USSCt case.

Particularly when the entire opinion is available on line for you to read for yourself:

Fernandez v. California

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.

31 posted on 02/27/2014 6:16:45 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

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.


32 posted on 02/27/2014 6:16:50 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

owner or occupant?


33 posted on 02/27/2014 6:18:28 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Exactly.

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!


34 posted on 02/27/2014 6:19:21 PM PST by djf (OK. Well, now, lemme try to make this clear: If you LIKE your lasagna, you can KEEP your lasagna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
The police were in hot pursuit of a robbery suspect.

Or so they said. I know the California courts and the police here. They are not always the heroes they are billed to be.

35 posted on 02/27/2014 6:19:46 PM PST by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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.


36 posted on 02/27/2014 6:20:34 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Benito Cereno

No, but it’s from Russia Today, so you know it must be right.


37 posted on 02/27/2014 6:21:41 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

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.


38 posted on 02/27/2014 6:24:16 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I read the decision
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf

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.


39 posted on 02/27/2014 6:28:09 PM PST by redfreedom (All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing - that's how the left took over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Supreme Court Rules Citizens May Search A Governor`s Home Without Obtaining A Warrant

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.

40 posted on 02/27/2014 6:28:39 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redfreedom
What bothers me is to what extent will the JBT’s take this ruling in their ruthless disregard for the Constitution?

Exactly. The camel's nose in the tent.

41 posted on 02/27/2014 6:36:58 PM PST by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Correct.


42 posted on 02/27/2014 6:38:44 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
But it does put a final nail in the coffin for the thought of anyone ever sharing my home. Besides the catz.

/johnny

43 posted on 02/27/2014 6:40:10 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Thanks for the clarification


44 posted on 02/27/2014 6:41:15 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

In this case, the “excuse” was the battery of the woman.


45 posted on 02/27/2014 6:59:50 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Tyranny and a debased culture go together and candy coated with legal pot for the sheeple


46 posted on 02/27/2014 7:01:13 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Alex Murphy

A good summary.


47 posted on 02/27/2014 7:03:31 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.


48 posted on 02/27/2014 7:04:55 PM PST by SolidRedState (I used to think bizarro world was a fiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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 - - - - .


49 posted on 02/27/2014 7:06:00 PM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

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.


50 posted on 02/27/2014 7:09:15 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson