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 ...
Yes, people change their minds. I’m not saying this isn’t a tricky case—it was—just that, in my reading of the facts, the Court got it wrong.
And yes, in this case, the cops did not arrest him as a pretense to get him out of the house, but it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for cops to do exactly that under the precedent set in this case.
Again, this was a tricky case. But, all told, under all the circumstances, these cops could have, and should have, gotten a warrant to search the premises.
Probable cause is justification for a search warrant. It is not needed if someone with legal authority invites the police to enter the premises.
If you allowed cops to search your car, then a warrant was not needed. You gave permission. If they discover your girlfriend had drugs in the car, she cannot complain about the search.
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.
You DO realize what a Writ of Assistance was, don’t you?
No...I guess you do not.
probable cause would have let them arrest the guy, and while arrested, get a search warrant.
If they already have reason to arrest the person, they can. They cannot arrest someone just to get him out of the way. And if someone else with control of the property THEN gives permission...yes, they can search.
No. Probable cause is not needed for an arrest. You are mixing up terms. It is also entirely legal to arrest someone for one crime (driving drunk) and then use the information you find (drugs in the car) to prosecute them for another. That has always been true.
You DO realize that what you are defending brings us ever closer to those abuses, do you not?
You do realize that your advocacy lends support to those who don’t believe a man’s home is his castle, do you not?
Wrong. They can and do. You can be arrested merely for “resisting arrest”-—with no other charges against you.
You are either dishonest, a government employee, or hoping others here are naive.
It's even simpler. The official excuse would be "we didn't know that this person has dementia and/or other issues that could prevent them from giving consent. We aren't doctors."
Well, at least the police now has a simple way to search occupied residences. Arrest everyone who objects, one by one, for "interference with investigation" or for "disturbing the peace", until one of those who remain surrenders and allows the search.
In this case the guy who was arrested attracts no sympathy. But that's always how new laws and rulings are installed - on test cases that are open and shut, when nobody can defend the bad guy. Shortly after the same legal principle is used against everyone else.
Awww, come on man...you’re laying the smack down onto Mr Rogers. He’s got the cool sweater and the toy trolley and stuff.
can yuou not see the potential for abuse here? guy say no but the woman’s intimidated by the cops and says yes? then they can have afield day until they find something wrong and then arrest the guyb/c he dared to sayno to armed govt agents?
Indeed.
Arrests, then disappearances, and then deaths.
How many Freepers, their spouses and their children will one day have their homes and families torn apart, lives ruined and even mourn the loss of loved ones as a result of this ruling and the many abuses sure to follow?
How long does the denial of consent to search last? Up to the second the denier is dragged away in cuffs?
—Clearly a bad decision by the court.
Bingo.
Saying no to a search is not and never has been probable cause for a search or an arrest.
and neither has it been legal for officers to plant stuff on people or their house/cars and arrest them on phony charges but that happens too.
“You do realize that your advocacy lends support to those who don’t believe a man’s home is his castle, do you not?”
No, it does not. You see, MY castle is also my WIFE’s castle, and she can give people permission without asking me first.
The Writs of Assistance were general warrants, covering entire colonies for as long as the King lived, plus 6 months. That has NOTHING to do with this.
“You are either dishonest, a government employee, or hoping others here are naive.”
Name-calling is childish. I’ve been posting on FreeRepublic since 1998. The idea that I’m a state control advocate is as stupid as calling Clarence Thomas and Scalia those names - all so you can agree with Ginsberg & Kagan.
Maybe you're not considering that they might be maliciously allowing the cops into the house, because they want to harm you, rather than just doing it out of ignorance or compliance with authority. Acrimony and matrimony often go hand in hand nowadays. Hard to say the same thing for most of the other relationships that cause folks to live together, at least not to the same degree.
“Probable cause is not needed for an arrest.”
I’m wrong...got hasty in writing. Sorry.
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.