FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
Exactly. The camel's nose in the tent.
Correct.
/johnny
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.
What, they are going to plant a girlfriend in the house to grant consent?
That's an articulable suspicion if not probable cause, right there. Never mind the hot pursuit.
Something like, "Mr. Fernandez, if you're running from the cops, don't give your girlfriend a gratuitous beatdown, she may decide to consent to a search just to get rid of your nasty presence."
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
uh-oh
Article V appears to be the only remaining fix without war.
Cops are out of control. They’re being trained to take down patriots.
Warrantless search of homes is not new news nor is it necessarily startling or problematic. The Fourth Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures and doesn't necessarily require a warrant. In certain cases a search of a home may be warrantless as long as there is probable cause. Two instances where a warrant is not required to search a home are 1) consent and 2) clear emergency circumstances where there is immediate threat to life or limb. This case, which appears to be a case of consent with probable cause to search the house, doesn't on its face doesn't seem out of line with the train of common law.
We should be clear if there's some obvious deviation from what has historically been considered a reasonable search. But please, if not, there's enough real problems going on without inflaming people unnecessarily.
Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant
Warrantless search of homes is not new news nor is it necessarily startling or problematic. The Fourth Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures and doesn't necessarily require a warrant. In certain cases a search of a home may be warrantless as long as there is probable cause. Two instances where a warrant is not required to search a home are 1) consent and 2) clear emergency circumstances where there is immediate threat to life or limb. This case, which appears to be a case of consent with probable cause to search the house, doesn't on its face doesn't seem out of line with the train of common law.
We should be clear if there's some obvious deviation from what has historically been considered a reasonable search. But please, if not, there's enough real problems going on without inflaming people unnecessarily.
In a case called Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), the Court said that if the police knock on your door, ask for permission to search your house, and you say no, they can't search without a warrant, but if you say it's OK, they can search without a warrant.
The next year, in a case called United States v. Matlock (1974), the Court said the same rule applied if several people live together in a house and one of them comes to the door and consents. (In that case, only one of several roommates was home when the police arrived, and he consented. The other occupants weren't there. The Court said, in effect, that if one roommate can let the Avon Lady in, he can let the cops in.)
In 2006, the Court decided Georgia v. Randolph, in which police knocked on the door and asked for permission to search; Mrs. Randolph and her husband both came to the door, and she said it was OK to search and he said no. The Court said (by a narrow majority, with Justice Thomas writing for the dissenters) that his refusal trumped her consent, so the police needed a warrant, but only because he was there at the time. Otherwise, Matlock would have applied. (Thomas would have let her consent trump his regardless.)
In this week's case, the police were chasing a robbery suspect. They knocked on a door, and a woman answered, bleeding from a fresh bruise; she told the police "I was just in a fight." While she was talking to the police, her boyfriend came to the door and told them to leave. The police arrested him for domestic battery and for the robbery. After he had been taken away, they asked the girlfriend for permission to search, she gave it, and they found the money stolen from the robbery. The Court said that this case was more like Matlock than like Randolph because the boyfriend had been removed for a legitimate reason (the police had probable cause to arrest him for the robbery and for domestic violence). The Court made clear that if there had been no valid reason to remove him, his refusal couldn't be overridden.
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.