[Ramius]

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.

Once an arrest is made they can search anyway. That's not new.

[Secret Agent Man]

so now they will just arrest the person saying no and search.

hope you don’t say no.

how is this constitutional? you don’ t want a warantless search, so they arrest you for objecting, and then they can legally search because arresting you allows them to ignore your objection.

[Boogieman]

“Once an arrest is made they can search anyway. That’s not new.”

That was the point of contention in the case that the Supremes decided to hear and made a finding on, isn’t it?:

“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.

“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.”

So, at the least, the ruling, from the Supreme Court, authorizing this is new, right?

[familyop]

"Once an arrest is made they can search anyway. That's not new."

Through the '90s, such searches were only allowed as far as the arrestee could reach for weapons (usually only the same room). Looks like local governments have gained some real estate to include whole residents' homes. Bureaucrats and their favored constituents are getting richer!