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.
Cops are out of control. They’re being trained to take down patriots.
In a case called Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), the Court said that if the police knock on your door, ask for permission to search your house, and you say no, they can't search without a warrant, but if you say it's OK, they can search without a warrant.
The next year, in a case called United States v. Matlock (1974), the Court said the same rule applied if several people live together in a house and one of them comes to the door and consents. (In that case, only one of several roommates was home when the police arrived, and he consented. The other occupants weren't there. The Court said, in effect, that if one roommate can let the Avon Lady in, he can let the cops in.)
In 2006, the Court decided Georgia v. Randolph, in which police knocked on the door and asked for permission to search; Mrs. Randolph and her husband both came to the door, and she said it was OK to search and he said no. The Court said (by a narrow majority, with Justice Thomas writing for the dissenters) that his refusal trumped her consent, so the police needed a warrant, but only because he was there at the time. Otherwise, Matlock would have applied. (Thomas would have let her consent trump his regardless.)
In this week's case, the police were chasing a robbery suspect. They knocked on a door, and a woman answered, bleeding from a fresh bruise; she told the police "I was just in a fight." While she was talking to the police, her boyfriend came to the door and told them to leave. The police arrested him for domestic battery and for the robbery. After he had been taken away, they asked the girlfriend for permission to search, she gave it, and they found the money stolen from the robbery. The Court said that this case was more like Matlock than like Randolph because the boyfriend had been removed for a legitimate reason (the police had probable cause to arrest him for the robbery and for domestic violence). The Court made clear that if there had been no valid reason to remove him, his refusal couldn't be overridden.