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 ...
No the ruling does not say that, what it says is:
1 house owned by two residents - a man and wife: Police believe a criminal is inside.
Man says LEO cannot enter, and is present — they must get a warrant.
Man leaves his house, and the LEO returns in his absence and asks the wife if he can enter and wife says yes — LEO can enter without a warrant, despite the fact that the man already said no.
Husband and wife say no — they must obtain a warrant. Not quite as radical as the headline would lead you to believe, IMHO.
PS - Best hope your spouse honors your wishes!
Never trust the cats, evah!
you are exactly correct. they do nothing but continually push the envelope. now, all they have to do is come up with some pretext based on any of the tens of thousands of laws they can choose from and keep arresting people until they fins someone to comply. the people saying this is no big deal are not thinking clearly. the police were told to get a warrant. given how easy it is to get a comoliant judge to do so, they should have had to at least go through the motions to pretend we have some small remnant of the Constitution left.
More along the lines of: A domestic violence call brings the cops and one person says that the perpetrator has something illegal in the hose and proof of it will help the case. That person asks the cops to do a search or just OKs the search. The perpetrator doesn't want to be found out and says no to a search.
There are some permutations that would make sense and it is being put out there as something it is not. If I'm beating my wife and I have a violent felony and a history of drug abuse, I don't want my house searched but my wife might see it differently because weapons or drugs I have might serve to help her get me taken out of the house. Still room for abuse, but not the blank check that some are calling it.
It all depends on how it’s written. If it says an absent owner is justification for a search, then that’s a lot different than saying an owner arrested or fled for a crime is justification for a search.
It also brings up the question of the power of a sign. Suppose someone put up a sign that said “No officer of law or person acting as an agent of the State, shall enter this location unless so empowered with a warrant or court order.”
Would that have any power in the absence of the owner?
Other questions:
- Can an occupant (not owner) over rule the wishes of the owner by granting consent to search?
- Can a minor grant permission?
- What happens when two people are present and disagree as to the search?
Whatever you do, don't read the actual decision. Go by the headline in a Russian newspaper.
Ever have any experience with the LAPD?
yep…..simple but solid grounds.
“It all depends on how it’s written. If it says an absent owner is justification for a search, then that’s a lot different than saying an owner arrested or fled for a crime is justification for a search.”
And in this case, it is solidly the latter.
“If it says an absent owner is justification for a search, then that’s a lot different than saying an owner arrested or fled for a crime is justification for a search.”
What it actually says is someone with legal authority to allow others onto a piece of property can allow cops on to the property without first getting consent from all the other residents, at least where common areas are concerned. It does not say that cops can enter a home without getting permission first. There is a reason Alito, Scalia & Thomas were comfortable with this ruling.
Yes, subject to the exception mentioned below.
Other questions: - Can an occupant (not owner) over rule the wishes of the owner by granting consent to search?
Yes, at least if the occupant generally has the owner's permission to admit guests.
- Can a minor grant permission?
Probably not, but I haven't seen cases on this point.
- What happens when two people are present and disagree as to the search?
Warrant needed, under the Matlock decision.
Only if both (1) they have a valid reason to take you out (here, it was probable cause to arrest), and (2) there is someone else in the house who consents to a search after you're gone.
this court already decided your last question in this exact case. they haul off the dissenting person and search b/c the second person said okay.
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.