Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant
Russia Today via zerohedge ^
| 2/27/14
| Russia Today Tyler Durden
Posted on 02/27/2014 6:01:12 PM PST by Nachum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
America devolves further
1
posted on
02/27/2014 6:01:12 PM PST
by
Nachum
To: Nachum
Makes it easy now.....the person at the door won’t consent to a search?
Arrest them, stuff them in the squad car and NOW you don’t need a warrant.
How convenient.
2
posted on
02/27/2014 6:03:35 PM PST
by
nvscanman
To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...
3
posted on
02/27/2014 6:03:52 PM PST
by
Nachum
(Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
To: Nachum
4
posted on
02/27/2014 6:03:56 PM PST
by
mabarker1
(Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
To: nvscanman
To: Nachum
more Barbara Streisand, from the (Marxist) USSC, our country is gone. :-(
6
posted on
02/27/2014 6:05:38 PM PST
by
skinkinthegrass
(The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
To: Nachum
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, if they take me out of my house, then they can search it without a warrant?
That must be based on a photon, of an emanation, of a penumbra, 'cause it sure as hell isn't in the text.
7
posted on
02/27/2014 6:06:10 PM PST
by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
To: Nachum
I didn’t think the US Supreme Court issued rulings this time of year. Aren’t they all released during summer in the final month of a court term?
8
posted on
02/27/2014 6:07:06 PM PST
by
Will88
To: Nachum
The actual case depends on the fact that an occupant of the home did in fact give the police permission to enter and conduct a search. The title is misleading and tendentious.
To: Nachum
To: Nachum
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
11
posted on
02/27/2014 6:08:53 PM PST
by
2ndDivisionVet
(I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
To: xzins
Part of what is being left out of this breathless reporting is that there was an occupant of the house who DID CONSENT to the police searching the house.
To: hinckley buzzard
The actual case depends on the fact that an occupant of the home did in fact give the police permission to enter and conduct a search. The title is misleading and tendentious. Camel's nose in the tent.
13
posted on
02/27/2014 6:09:55 PM PST
by
Nachum
(Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
To: Nachum
Dishonest headline. The court ruled that a wife can give the cops consent to search a house while the guy is in prison. Of course, if he hadn’t belted her first, she MIGHT have said no to the search.
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.
14
posted on
02/27/2014 6:10:52 PM PST
by
Mr Rogers
(I sooooo miss America!)
To: Nachum
And that just about closes the door. Bye Bye country I used to know.
15
posted on
02/27/2014 6:10:59 PM PST
by
MarMema
("If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it." Ted Cruz)
To: Nachum
I read the headline of the article and got upset. Then I read the entire article. I'm not so upset now.
A man and his girlfriend live at the same house. The police come and arrest the man. The police then ask the girlfriend for permission to search the house. She gives permission.
The girl lives at the house. She gave permission for the search, even though the man did not. I'm certainly no fan of police overreach, but I don't see any constitutional problem here.
And I feel even better that one of my heroes, Justice Alito, agrees with me.
16
posted on
02/27/2014 6:11:38 PM PST
by
Leaning Right
(Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
To: Nachum
All it is is this: if there is permission it does not have to be unanimous
17
posted on
02/27/2014 6:12:00 PM PST
by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: Nachum
18
posted on
02/27/2014 6:12:24 PM PST
by
Manic_Episode
(GOP = The Whig Party)
To: taxcontrol
Color me confused.
Russia Today has scooped the Washington Times?
19
posted on
02/27/2014 6:13:07 PM PST
by
Rome2000
(THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
To: Nachum
Kagen,Sotomayor and Ginsberg were the dissenters? F those other bastards.
20
posted on
02/27/2014 6:13:10 PM PST
by
csvset
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson