Ping
Always deny consent to a search, and keep your mouth shut. Make them do their job.
Disappointed to hear that John Roberts failed this very simple test of conservative values.
The average person, confronted with cops asking if they can search her house or car, would not realize she has a right to decline.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The average person may not know but I bet the criminal does.
This is not a question of “convenience of law enforcement”. The fact is that if you have contraband in your house and police have to get a search warrant the contraband will be gone by the time they return.
So let's see, man standing two houses away has no right of privacy but one standing in the doorway does? You see how screwed up it’s going to get and how police will not know what rules to follow? "Oh, no judge I was standing in the yard, not in the doorway."
News report of the arrest: "The defendant/victim of police abuse, claims that the police officer lied to justify an illegal search. According to the victim, he was standing on the sidewalk and not in his doorway. The illegal search took place at 4 a.m. There were several bystanders who confirmed the victims statement. The officer has had two reprimands for overstepping his authority. Several people have come forward to testify that this particular police officer has a reputation for lying to justify previous arrests. This newspaper is calling for the police chief take action against the officer for illegally searching for and finding fifteen pounds of cocaine in Mr. X's private living room, before typing out an affidavit, getting a judge out of bed, and serving the warrant on the victim prior to making a legal search of the living room."
If no one is home to deny access. Refer to the Patriot Act.
If I recall correctly, CJ Roberts argument was basicly why should there be a differentiation for someone "physically present in the entryway" who could deny entry, as the majority in this case ruled, versus someone "physically present" on the property, but in custody in the back of a police car in the driveway, who could not, as prior case law had determined. In both cases, the "significant other" gave permission to police to search. I believe his dissent had more to do with the Court failing to formulate a definition of "physically present occupant". See both US vs Matlock and Georgia vs Randolph for the slight difference. BTW, both cases are still valid.
This was abused by the cops all the time.
You just put ANYONE into the house and then let the plant "authorize" the entrance to the house.
Good, good decision.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
LOL!! Author Steve Chapman is beside himself with joy that a cocaine-using father beat the rap. Thank God the Supreme Court Hallelujah, and congratulations to Steve Chapman and the druggie. Common sense.