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.
“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...