We are within striking distance for yellow!
Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!
Make a difference.
PLEASE Contribute Today!
Woo hoo!! And now over less than $450 to the yellow!!
Posted on 02/25/2014 4:59:06 PM PST by Altariel
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.
The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Or if one occupant has dementia and says “okay” when the other occupant refuses to let the officer in without a warrant....
Be careful what you justify in the name of catching criminals. Be really, really careful.
Your liberty is at stake.
But is this case consent to search was denied.
How long does the denial last, One second after he is removed?
- Bad ruling on rights. I would rather the guilty go free sometimes than have fundamental rights eroded.
That is not the definition of “reasonable” as understood by the Founders.
Exactly. And in today’s law enforcement climate, YOU are guilty of SOME crime. All that has to be done is find you in violation of some obscure law, and voila, arrest!
True, but who among the common cohabitators is most likely to invite the cops into your home maliciously? I think the answer goes without saying.
The ruling deals with that issue. But frankly, as long as one of the legal occupants agrees, then what basis is there for rejecting a search of common areas? If someone with authority to say, “Come on in” says, “Come on in”, then what is the problem?
Don’t like it? Live by yourself.
Yuck, so the police can arrest you on a trivial charge. And then they can search your residence at will without a warrant?
This is a bad ruling.
“That is not the definition of “reasonable” as understood by the Founders.”
Please learn what it was the Founders objected to before you assume you know their intent. What is unreasonable about a person entering property based on an occupant’s legal permission? Do you think my wife should need my written permission to allow anyone on to our property?
Which leads to an interesting thought exercise. What would signage do in this situation. Something like “Posted - No search of this location is allowed without a warrant”.
“And then they can search your residence at will without a warrant?”
Well, yes - if your wife invites them to do so. Your wife has legal authority to invite someone on to your property.
That’s not at all what it says.
I think you are right. They can't search a home without a warrant just because a person isn't home. But if one occupant consents, and nobody is there to object, then they can search. Be careful who you live with.
“Your wife has always had the right to invite cops into your house. If you cannot trust her, why did you marry her?”
Well, I didn’t marry her, so there’s your answer to that one. However, from the way the article reads, it seems like the police couldn’t search the home if one present occupant objected, but now they can, if they arrest that occupant and get him out of the way.
The obvious consequence of this ruling that I foresee is that police will use this new power during domestic disputes. As soon as they get the man in cuffs, they won’t need any stinking probable cause to go on a fishing expedition against him.
“The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches.”
No, but it puts some limits on what warrantless searches are allowed, and this is another little chip knocked off those limits.
One would need to have the mental capacity to give consent.
I’m perfectly aware of what was objected to. I suggest you read up on your James Otis and John Adams.
You are willing to risk arrest if you say “no” and the “mrs” says yes?
Or will you say “yes”, only to have them seize on some trivial federal law of which you are unknowingly in violation, and therefore arrest you for that purpose. Or seize your property.
Either you work for the government, or you are incredibly naive about the reality of what can be done to a law-abiding American family.
I’m not sure I even see the controversy here. If the person on site is authorized to grant access to the property, and grants access... That’s reasonable.
I can see it getting dicey in the opposite situation... Where the person on site DENIES access to the search but someone else not at the scene grants access (like on the phone). Seems reasonable to me to limit the granting of permission to someone actually on site at the address.
Wow. What an horrific decision. This SCOTUS has done more to tank our Constitutional rights than any other in history.
Best comment I’ve ever read here. Amen.
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.