Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumRichard Fowler: SCOTUS Rules Cops DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home
In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don't need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.
"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement," Ginsburg wrote, "today's decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate." Tuesday's ruling, she added, "shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph."
Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the man's refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorities from entering.
"A physically present inhabitant's express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant," the majority ruled in that case.
The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, reports the LA Times.
According to the AP, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.
westerebus
(2,976 posts)Is it fascism yet?
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)It's happened before.
As long as you're a 'Good German', everything will be OK.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)principle.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)used to force the door w/o a warrant.
The concept of "Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest" used to be confined to the arrestee's person and immediate surroundings with-in reach.
The concept was designed for the protection of the officer and to preserve evidence the arrestee could immediately destroy.
This opens the door to extending the area of search to include house and possessions not immediately accessible to the arrestee; ie, areas that can wait for the prudence of a judge to determine if the search is reasonable.
With this decision, cops can arrest you on any technicality "loud noise, etc", then conduct a "fishing" search, perhaps finding some horrible crime such as growing a cannabis plant for your own use. "Manufacturing" a controlled substance is an automatic felony in most jurisdictions.
The ramifications of this decision are much broader than they seem.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)An old fave.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Pol: You are interfering with an officer.
"click"
Pol: Now we can go in.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)If an occupant isn't home, he can't object to a search?
Really?
Then, what's the point of a search warrant if they can just wait till he leaves?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If the police were to knock on your door and say, your roomate/spouse/SO says, "Hey come on in." and you are not there, they can enter. If you are there and say no, they can now remove you for whatever reason they choose, and then processed as if you were not there.
They can't enter without invitation, a warrant or belief of an ongoing crime.