Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant

Russia Today via zerohedge ^ | 2/27/14 | Russia Today Tyler Durden

[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.

[Nachum]

America devolves further

[nvscanman]

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.

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

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

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[mabarker1]

F them

[Benito Cereno]

[skinkinthegrass]

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

[xzins]

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.

[Will88]

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?

[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.

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[2ndDivisionVet]

“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

[taxcontrol]

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.

[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.

[Mr Rogers]

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.”

[MarMema]

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

[Leaning Right]

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.

[yldstrk]

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

[Manic_Episode]

[Rome2000]

Color me confused.

Russia Today has scooped the Washington Times?

[csvset]

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