“It’s clear you’ve already chosen to whisper the soothing falsehood. “tis no danger, Sleep on, fellow patriots, only liberals need fear this.”
Blow it out your lying butt!
Show me where the Founding Fathers rejected the right of a legal owner to invite ANYONE on to their property, government or not.
A warrant is used when permission has been denied or is not available. When permission is given, no warrant is required.
Again - if you are a passenger in a car, and the driver gives the cops permission to search the car, you cannot complain if the cops find you hiding drugs. Your home is no different, in the sense that someone with a legal right to invite another onto your property also has the legal right to allow cops on the property.
Align yourself with Kagan and Ginsberg if you want. I’d find them repulsive company. If my sin is agreeing with Thomas and Scalia, I’ll take my chances.
“The problem wasn’t ultimately writs of assistance.”
Ummm...yes it was. An unending warrant covering an entire colony WAS the problem.
Clipping quotes to use them out of context is intellectually dishonest.
Go back and reread James Otis. You’re desperately trying to distract from his point.
Consider this: you are a suspect in an investigation. Your wife gives the police the okay. You say “no.” on the grounds of no warrant.
You are handcuffed and held in back of a car while the search is conducted. Your wife is told to sit down and is watched by an officer while his partner goes to search. Officer safety must be assured after all.
Shockingly, evidence is “found” which demonstrates your “ clear” “guilt.” Your shocked and dismayed wife can’t believe this is happening to you. She protests your innocence. The police point to this case, informing your wife all has transpired legally.
It may be planted evidence, it may be “evidence” of a “crime” committed daily, unknowingly, due to the plethora of laws on the books.
But the damage is done.
Instead of protecting the family castle, the king is treated like a common criminal, and the queen realizes, too late, that the system she trusted has worked against them both.
It turns out, the royal pair *did* have good reason to decline the government rogues entry to their castle,
In all seriousness, if I were in your shoes, I would sit down with my wife and encourage her to make give a default answer “no”, should any such situation present itself.
If ever there is a time for husband and wife to work together in unity, this is it.
While you are considering the real and practical ramifications of what you are defending, show me where any of the Founders ever said that government employees could enter a free oerson’s house despite the refusal of an occupant.
A conservative justice who opens the door for more government overreach and abuse is worse than his liberal counterpart, and should not be defended on the grounds that he made a statist ruling.
Telling people not to be alarmed when a conservative makes a statist ruling is dishonest and cheapens the meaning of “conservative.”
You could certainly complain if the cops searched your pockets and found the drugs. That is because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to what is in your pockets.
Similarly, there can hardly be a case where a person lives with others but has no expectation of privacy within the home. I might go into my wife's purse to retrieve some particular item, but I would not SEARCH her purse. I would not find myself looking in her closet or in her dresser.
Similarly, my wife does not know the combination to my gun safe. She's not interested and never has a need for anything in the safe unless I am present to retrieve it.
I have seen plenty of situations where people have a roommate in order to live in a nicer apartment. This ruling would seem to put the tenant roommate in the position of being able to grant a search of an entire home.
At least in the case where the man arrested has explicitly denied permission for the search, that should trigger the requirement for a warrant. Does a man's home cease to be his home simply because he is absent?
That's not actually true — the fourth, as written, can be broken into distinct parts: