Posted on 02/27/2014 6:01:12 PM PST by Nachum
If the most disturbing, if underreported, news from yesterday, was Obama's "modification" of NSA capabilities, which contrary to his earlier promises, was just granted even greater powers as phone recording will now be stored for even longer than previously, then this latest development from the Supreme Court - one which some could argue just voided the Fourth amendment - is even more shocking. RT reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises. With its 6 to 3 decision in Fernandez v. California on Tuesday, the Court sided with law enforcements ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
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.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
F them
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.
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?
Bump
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
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.
Camel's nose in the tent.
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.
And that just about closes the door. Bye Bye country I used to know.
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.
All it is is this: if there is permission it does not have to be unanimous
Russia Today has scooped the Washington Times?
Kagen,Sotomayor and Ginsberg were the dissenters? F those other bastards.
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.