Posted on 02/25/2014 4:59:06 PM PST by Altariel
Ping
The continued flushing of our Constitutional rights is in full swing.
Seems like another reason weighing against getting married nowadays. Wife gets mad at you? There goes your 4th amendment rights...
“...may not object to a search when he is not at home.”
I didn’t read the article, but I hope this means that the occupant consents IS home that they can perform a search. (Still not right imho.)
I hope it doesn’t mean “Ok Frank, the guy just left for work - break down the door.”
It’s true of anyone. Parent, grandparent, child, relative, friend....
All it takes is one person saying “let them in, Boogieman, you have nothing to hide....”
Marriage is not a requirement for having your rights violated like a drunk prom date.
“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.
Thats exactly what this is about.
No. You might want to read the opinion first.
The ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf
The situation:
“Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding.
When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas’ oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery.
The trial court denied petitioner’ motion to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted.”
Also:
“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.”
WTF? It should take BOTH occupants' permission or all bets are OFF. How can one occupant's rights negate the rights of the other? This is a disgusting ruling. FUSCROTUS!
Your wife has always had the right to invite cops into your house. If you cannot trust her, why did you marry her?
The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches.
Freepers ought to be careful about aligning themselves with Ginsburg, Kagan & Sotomayor...
....and Alito took the ruling beyond “we need to catch a violent suspect.”
“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.
....and Alito took the ruling beyond “we need to catch a violent suspect.”
“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.
Freepers need to always adhere to the Constitution, and not desperately defend a government employee because he / she is “conservative”.
So....if one occupant is committing crimes against the other, the criminal can veto the victim? Yeah. That makes sense.
Even this is defended.....
Yes. Indeed, an occupant who is in jail doesn’t have total control over a residence. Why is that a shock?
From Thomas: “Accordingly, given a blank slate, I would analyze this case consistent with THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent in Randolph: “A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it.”...That is because “[c]o-occupants have ‘assumed the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched.’”
The Constitution does not protect you or anyone else from ALL warrantless searches. It never has, nor was it intended to do so. It does ban General Warrants, such as were used in colonial times to give the government unrestricted access to all colonial homes at all times.
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.