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 enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Why Not?... If they can tax you on something you own... then you do not own it.. THEY DO...
You’re renting..
Seems limited somewhat. If only one of two residents permits search, the other resident can’t keep them out. The case at hand isn’t clear cut. The husband refused a warrantless search but the wife later permitted it.
Sad when the liberals have more respect for rights than the “conservatives” who are apparently just statists.
Facts matter. Just as you can refuse permission for a search and then tomorrow grant that permission, however unlikely that change of heart might be, one roommate can refuse permission and then another roommate can later grant permission. I don't like it when the government works around the Bill of Rights, but in this case they were (barely) within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Now all they have to do is find a legal excuse to remove the objector from the premises.
No, Russia Today has thrown us some red meat . . . pay careful attention to who falls for it.
Taking you out of your house would be a violation of the “persons” bit.
I don’t agree with this decision, but the characterization of this ruling is not very accurate.
It’s ALL a cartoon.
Say what you will about legal precedent, but if the “consenter” is unaware of the ramifications of a search they give up their rights.
Can you imagine the can of worms this opens? It gives the police every reason to persuade any occupant to consent to a warrantless search. In this case, I agree with the dissenting opinion of the minority. This is bad news all the way around.
Particularly when the entire opinion is available on line for you to read for yourself:
The police were in hot pursuit of a robbery suspect. He ran into an apartment, and the police heard screaming and fighting inside. When they knocked on the door, a battered and bleeding woman answered the door. She denied that anyone was in the apartment but her infant son. They asked her if they could conduct a protective sweep, and Fernandez then suddenly appeared and objected to a search. He was arrested for domestic assault and then was identified by the robbery victim and charged with the robbery also. Another officer returned to the apartment an hour later and obtained oral and written consent to search from the woman.
Not quite what it was billed to be.
More precisely, if only one of two occupants is there, then that occupant gets to decide if the cops come in without a warrant or not.
When folks side with Ginsberg to oppose Scalia & Thomas, then they OUGHT to look at the issue more closely. Scalia and Thomas are not idiots.
owner or occupant?
Exactly.
This case is not at all the way it is being presented to the public.
They HAD PERMISSION!
As many problems as there seem to be with police overreach and misconduct, we certainly don’t need to fan the flames with a non-existent problem!
Or so they said. I know the California courts and the police here. They are not always the heroes they are billed to be.
When you get arrested for beating the crap out of your wife, there are consequences. I’ve no real problem with this decision under the limitations posed by the facts.
No, but it’s from Russia Today, so you know it must be right.
This story is at least a couple days old, and reported already in U.S papers. We had a discussion about it a while back right here at FR.
Tyler is unlikely to “scoop” anything.
I read the decision
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf
It appears there were two occupants of the searched dwelling. The woman that got the snot kicked out of her gave oral and written permission for the search. The guy that beat her up was arrested and later complained he never gave consent to search.
In the context of this particular case, I agree with the court ruling.
What bothers me is to what extent will the JBT’s take this ruling in their ruthless disregard for the Constitution?
How I miss the days when cops protected and served the people, not a political party or ideology.
Russia Toad Day via zerohedgeflunder ^ | 2/27/14 | Posted on 2/27/2014 9:01:12 PM by Naaaaacoestostadasaachum
RT reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that citizens may search a governor`s`s home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises, such as a governor`s whore, if in NY State.
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.