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 ...
And you used to have the legal right to forbid it.
A person with dementia would not have the legal authority to grant consent.
In general this wasn’t a hard argument, and I am surprised it was not 9-0.
The idea that one occupant could object to an entry, and then after he is arrested, the police would never ever be allowed to enter the house, is absurd. At some point the remaining occupant of a house has to have the right to invite police into the house.
Realize also that the police could clearly tell the occupant of the house what they were looking for, and the occupant could have legally brought the items out of the house.
It is silly and really unworkable to claim that a legal occupant of a house can never invite law enforcement into a house if some other occupant has ever said no.
The issue in this case was narrower — what if the person isn’t in the house anymore because they were arrested? Clearly the justices did not want the police to have the ability to simply detain the person objecting in order to get a search.
Ahh, but the official excuse would be “we didn’t know a person with dementia lacks the mental caacity to give consent.”
After all, not too long ago, Seattle police claimed they had no idea that tasering a pregnant woman is wrong. (see Malaika Brooks).
The same excuse will be used again....
Once an arrest is made they can search anyway. That's not new.
Based on my understanding of this decision, isn’t the Supreme Court questionably assuming, in these times of widespread ignorance of the Constitution, that occupants are aware of their 4th Amendment-protected rights? Perhaps a 4th Amendment-equivalent of Miranda warning is needed?
Did you agree with the Kelo ruling also?
Exactly. That is where I think the Court got this particular case wrong. The guy objected to the search. The cops knew he objected to the search. The cops arrested the guy, and removed him from the premises. Once they removed him (and his objection) from the premises, they proceeded to search, still knowing that he objected to the search.
Under those facts, calling the search a "consent" search seems an awful stretch, to me at least. Particularly since, once the guy was arrested, the risk of evidence destruction was nil, and they could have easily gotten a warrant to search the premises.
“You are willing to risk arrest if you say “no” and the “mrs” says yes?”
My wife has ALWAYS had the right to invite people on to our property. If I say no one day, and then she later gives permission, her permission - coming last - prevails.
“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.”
From the opinion:
“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.”
“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.”
If the wife gives permission. Once permission is given to enter and search, it is given.
“Did you agree with the Kelo ruling also?”
No. But when you side with Ginsberg against Thomas, Alito & Scalia, you MIGHT want to THINK first. Please note that in Kelo, the DISSENTERS were O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas...
Nice. Asshats. What was the last one they got right (citizens over trough-feeders)? Citizens United?
An hour later, permission was given. You don’t think people ever change their minds? Nor was he arrested as a pretense to get him out of the way.
This is a very tricky decision. In past, some courts have ruled that minors can authorize a search of their parents’ home. Likewise, if an adult has “apparent authority” over the place based on what facts are known to the officers on the scene.
In practice, I fear this will turn into a situation where police will be met at the door by two people who refuse them authority to search. So they arrest one of them, and suggest they will arrest the other, unless they agree to the search.
Likewise, people will be coerced by police. “Am I under arrest?”
“That depends if you consent to a search or not. If you don’t, we will detain you until we get a warrant to search, but it might take a few hours. But if you let us in now, we should be done in a few minutes.”
Because now there's opportunity and incentive for the cops to game the situation by arresting a party who doesn't wish to waive their civil rights. Not a good situation. Look what it's done for asset forfeiture.
this is unconstitutional bullcrap.
complete and full reset required.
"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.
if the guy didn’t livethere he’s not an occupant or resident.
Whichever ones are stupid or sheepleized / state licking. Doesn't have to have anything to do with matrimony.
“Held:
1. When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/164/
why didn’t they just say then that officers had probable cause? notdrag the 4th into it at all?
this is how the ruling will be used today and in the future.
“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book…
The writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath. But I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted…
In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed “to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects”; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King’s dominions. Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm.
In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us…
One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.” -—James Otis
“Every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” “Then and there the child Independence was born.” -—John Adams
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.