This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant
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.
In 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department sought suspect Walter Fernandez, believed to have stabbed someone in a violent gang robbery. When police first arrived at the suspect’s home, they heard yelling and screaming before Fernandez’s live-in girlfriend Roxanne Rojas answered the door, appearing “freshly bruised and bloody,” and with an infant in hand, according to argument recap by SCOTUSblog.
Fernandez was spotted by police, and said, “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.” Yet police arrested him on charges of domestic violence. Later, once Fernandez was out of the home, police asked Rojas for permission to conduct a search, which yielded evidence implicating Fernandez in the robbery.
Probable cause or probable loss of all civil rights?
The Court’s decision justified the police actions, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority’s position.
“A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,” Alito wrote. He added that “denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence.”
Alito was joined in the majority by Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – joined in the minority by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, marking a gender divide among the Justices in the case – wrote the dissenting opinion, calling the decision a blow to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
“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 authorizes 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.
In addressing Randolph in the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the difference between that case and Fernandez was the physical presence of the suspect.
“Our opinion in Randolph took great pains to emphasize that its holding was limited to situations in which the objecting occupant is physically present,” he wrote.
“We therefore refuse to extend Randolph to the very different situation in this case, where consent was provided by an abused woman well after her male partner had been removed from the apartment they shared.”
Prior to Randolph and Fernandez, the Court ruled in the 1974 case United States v. Matlock that any one of the co-tenants in a home can consent to a police search of the premises.
Well there goes the fourth amen... oh look, over there: it's another all time high in the S&P 500. On paper, those who hold stocks have never been richer. Everyone else, barricade your doors, and the police come knocking, don't even bother answering - they will come in anyway. And also prepare your guns for return to the government: that particular "constitutional" amendment is the next to go.
»
- 75780 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
All I ask is that they identify themselves as police officers, that way no one gets hurt. Know what I mean?
I'm all for protecting and defending our Constitutional rights from an overreaching government. Unfortunately, this article distracts from real and egregious government violations of our 4th amendment rights taking place every day such as the NSA collecting our metadata, searches by the TSA, random traffic checkpoints, etc, by attacking police who seem to have just been doing their job to protect the public. In this case, the girlfriend (who, btw, was visibly injured and has a right not to be battered/abused) consented to the search. Alito said that a "warrantless consent search" (emphasis mine) was reasonable and consistent with the 4th Amendment. He didn't say anything about the police being able to enter your house without either a) consent of one of the persons who lives on the premises or b) a warrant. The ruling seems in keeping with the Court's earlier decision in the 1974 case of U.S. vs. Matlock. Of the multitude of flagrant violations of our Constitutional rights that the government perpetrates daily, this doesn't seem to be one of them.
What's considered a reasonable consent search?
Sounds like the NSA has something on Alioto too. Oh well the Constitution had a good run....as long as our rulers are wise and kind we should be fine...now that we are reverting to monarchy (non hereditary mind you).
Alito is from a strong conservative background. I grew up near Hamilton NJ. Hamilton has thrived due to the Italian immigrants. I hope he hasn't been corrupted. He did go to Princeton though.
Now the game is to remove from the premesis any objectors...and then intimidate any remaining into allowing a search.
See even I can figure that one out.
I highly recommend using 1 1/4oz or 1 3/8oz high velocity 12 gauge slugs against home intruders of any stripe. Body armor is essentially useless against heavyweight high velocity slugs. Even against rifle plates and "trauma plates", the target is going down hard with serious or fatal blunt force injuries.
supreme court decisions with regard to police powers are predicated upon the assumption that the police are law abiding. since the police have no right to the assumption of following the law in the course of their duties much of the case law involving the job of police is met with a "legal" remedy. in this case, if there is a dispute between room mates over a consent to be searched then the one not giving consent is taken away with a disorderly conduct charge or other such bs charges to be removed from the scene so a search can be conducted with consent. the scenario that comes to mind is a car search as part of a traffic stop where a cop is given consent by a passenger but not the driver. is the person not willing to give consent far enough removed from the scene if he is in the backseat of the attending police car? there is way to much room for legal abuse just as we have seen with the patriot act laws aimed at "terrorists" only.
Well it's pretty simple; just change the definition of "terrorist" like they have done tens of times already. Unreasonably happy? Terrorist. Referring to the constitution? Terrorist! etc etc
1984 is a fucking picknick to this shit. Where is the populative outcry? Why is nobody doing squat?
Under this context, the court made the correct ruling, this is not a blow to the 4th. However, these are just opinions, that is why they are called opinions.
Time to move the stacks offsite? All they need now is a quick 6102 when the time comes and boom, the SHTF fund goes the way of YourRA. "If you like your PMs, you can keep your PMs."
Yeah, I was watching "Blue Bloods" with Tom Sellick who I consider Dad, wherein I learn how to think about these complex issues. Dad tells me that high officials ache for justice for the little people. Though they hold high office, they remember their roots in the old neighborhood, where they came from. They seek ONLY what's best for you, and I, and Aunt Bee down the lane.
In this spirit of continuity, Dad found that people are hiding (very often these are ethnic people) in their homes, and THEY WISH TO HARM YOU, usually, well, almost always. Can you even imagine what kind of perverted abuse goes on there? Sick twisted stuff to be sure.
Dad needs to get in there and straighten things out for YOUR own good. Besides you don't have anything to hide, do you? You see, the world is divided into Perps, Vics, and Blue Bloods standing fearless against the dark.
Just remember. It's for your own good.
What about consent from the actual property owner?
The destruction of individual rghts and personal freedoms will continue unabated, until those who have destroyed the Constitution are punished, or otherwise held accountable.
What do you do if a cop orders you to open your safe without a warrant? Can you say no without being arrested? Can he confiscate the contents of your safe without a warrant?
you can tell him to go ahead an fuck himself.
arrested for what?
no.
Tell a cop to fuck himself gives him grounds to arrest you. Just firmly but politly tell him no, not without a valid warrant..
Also don't let the cop into your home in the first place and don't step outside to talk to them. Have a heavy duty screen door (locked) and talk through that and have them pass the warrant through that before you open the screen door.
Always keep side gates, back doors locked as protection against robbers and nosy cops and don't leave anything in plain site.
You still have (some) rights, use them and make the police get a warrant.
He won't find my safe. that's why its called a safe.
Obama vs Bush Supreme Court Appointees. At least those Libtards know their Constitution.
I'll believe that Corporations are people too when Texas executes one!
Yes, this is Bush's fault, almost everything that's wrong with this country was an agenda of right wingers like Bush.. When you include Reagan, its a slam dunk for Republican destruction of individual and economic rights. They planned this way. Look at Republican Congress, they love the status quo and wouldn't change anything other than cut Social Security and Food Stamps.
"Republican Congress" Really? When did the Senate stop being part of Congress? The most powerful folks in govenrment the last 5 years have been all Dems buddy. It's a total canard to think that the House, Republican controlled for less than 2 years iw weilding all of the power in this country. When 3/3 of Govt for 2 years and 2/3 for 2 years is controlled by Dems along with MSM I think that's long enough to start pointing some fingers toward another party other than the Republicans or an even smaller minority, the dreaeded Tea Party.
The very real threat to our government is how complicit the media has been in "looking the other way" as it pertains to Democrat behavior. Bush was atrocious, especially with the "Patriot ACt" and the Times and Obama and all dems basically stood together in condemnation. I just knew it would change once those same Dems took control. A funny thing happened along the way to power though. Instead of expiring the act is was in fact it was made much more onerous, giving the president and the "authority" far more power than it's original maddening design. That sound you heard while it was happenign was crickets as nary a Dem or NY Times or other liberal anti Patriot ACt media outlet made a peep about it.
That powerful and obnoxious odor you smell wafting from every pour in America is the smell of mendacity. Mendacity from any politcal operative from either side of the aisle. They both are getting exactly what they want to ensure perpetuation regardless of the right or wrong of it. Kerry won today's Mendacity prize with the "America is acting like a poor nation..." statement.
find me a single case that actually says "corporations are people."
As for Citizens - why not read what some libertarians, correctly, think about that decision before swallowing the Huff Po consensus on the matter.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/09/you-are-now-free-to-speak-abou
The first amendment does not allow the government to fine or jail people [human beings] for political speech. And if it does, then it has no meaning, and there is no reason the government can't tell the NY Times what they can and can not publish because... wait for it... the NYT is a corporation.
{and no, the "press" doesn't get special rights. "press" meant printed word, meaning Thomas Paine cranking out pamphlets had protection for what he said and what he wrote}.
Constitutional law is interesting. You read just a few books on it and you know more about it than most lawyers about the basics, and more than just about everybody with really strong opinions on some case they read about in the NYT as summarized by some cunt that has an undergrad degree in journalism....
Bullshit misleading article. Why can't an occupant give police consent to search, again? What if the consenting occupant owns the property?
At best you could say the 'physical presence' rule is stupid, but I'm not especially worried about cases where police only get consent from one occupant who has a right to invite 3rd parties onto the property. Not when they're upholding nsa surveillance, indefinite detention, and a number of other real departures from long established law .... 'because terror.'
Lots of cases to get seriously upset about in the past 10 or 12 years. This just isn't one of them.
The police intimidated the woman into consent.
That's an absurd thing to say given the story.
The 3 dissenting women on the bench disagree with you.
And the trial court disagreed with them. Reviewing courts, except in very narrow circumstances, aren't supposed to review the found facts {jury, or bench judge}, only the law. This is a pragmatic rule - the trial judge is present to hear the testimony, see the witness and so forth.
The dissent ignored this rule in contravention of the basic rules about what appellate courts are supposed to do.
They weren't there, and neither were you.
If there were evidence that consent was coerced, they had an opportunity to present it.
I'm not a lawyer, though, and don't know if the voluntariness of the consent has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't believe so {I have had occasion to read a couple books on evidence, but that was a while back} because it's not one of the charges or an element of a charge, so it would be up to the judge to instruct the jury, I think to determine if there was or was not consent based on the 'preponderance of the credible evidence' but it may just be up to the judge, not sure [anyone know?]
If the police intimidated the woman and she is willing to testify to that at her mans trial does that result in the evidence obtained becoming poisoned fruit?
I would hope so but what does the the law say?
If that were true (i.e. that the girfriend was intimidated by the police and therefore did not freely give consent to the search), then the defense attorney should have made that argument to the court in a pre-trial motion seeking to keep any evidence obtained during the search out of the trial since it would have been an illegal search and seizure in violation of the 4th amendement. Because the evidence was allowed at trial, the defense either did not question the legitimacy of the girlfriend's consent or the trial judge found that there weren't sufficient facts to support such a claim. If the defense attorney made the argument and the lower court judge decided to allow the evidence at trial anyway, then the defense attorney should have made his/her objection on the record at trial so that the upper court could review the lower court's decision. There is no information in this article that the defense attorney raised this issue in either a pre-trial motion or an objection, nor is there any information in the article which would support your assertion that the girlfriend was intimidated by the police into giving consent. You are merely conjecturing. Under the circumstances presented, I believe the court made the right decision.
As both Johnny said in his comment and I said in my comment up above, there are much more egregious violations of our fourth amendment rights that we should be concerned with. This case isn't one of them. In fact, harping on/overreacting to this case only gives ammunition to the establishment/statists/mainstream press in calling Constitutionalists/Libertarians/Conservatives names like crazy conspiracy theorists and loony toons when we bring up actual violations of everyone's fourth amendment rights - like the NSA collecting our meta data, the TSA subjecting us to naked body scanners and physical searches without probable cause or warrants, etc. We need to pick our battles carefully.
- Lt. Johnson, we have information about the enemy of the system living at this address. Check them out. Do the neighbours as well.
-OK. Captain, me and Smith we'll take a van.
-Just do it will you.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/my-seal-of-protection-is-foretold-...
https://www.google.pl/search?q=not+in+my+house+dikembe+mutombo&espv=210&...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=600nw-4vx3w
Greg Hunter with Karen Hudes (World Bank Whistle blower - 21 year veteran attorney of WB)
New video from a straight shooter
Bunnyswanson - Great link you posted. All here should watch it. It supports in facts what nearly every ZH author and commentator has stated for years and been called crazy, the pain really comes from family on that one.
The criminals will go and the Republic restored. However, you have too many of inside leadership, particularly Senators and current and for White House that can be implicated.
There is a wall of money coming to buy media, to build entire backbones of networks if need be to get out the truth to the public and some funding are wisely clever in how they are going about it.
Criminals do desperate things to avoid being caught. At best, the brand of the U.S. is thrown out at Constitutional Convention and a new Republic (like Russia I am sure 2/3 of the same old politicians will still be there). You may need to hedge for short supply chain disruptions but probably more in luxuries than staples. I fit into the camp that thinks this is what will happen.
However, the inside leadership are pushing for war. They can poke the Russian bear to attack and if it does it may go nuclear. That is the worst case and there are a bunch of scenerio's in between these two potential poles.
Have 60 days food and water, things to purify water such as bleach are cheap. So is a hunting knife, candles, axe, rope, beans and heavy duty clothing for warmth.
If I thought the latter scenerio would turn into WW3 I wouldnt be investing in R.E. But as Ben Franklin said it is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. Yes, have means of self-defense even a couple of baseball bats in the house if you don't like guns or cannot afford them. Hedge then stay active in the world, to enjoy as best possible.
Thank you all contributors of ZH. You helped a lot of people. Even if it were one educated to save wealth or life "he who saves ones saves the world."
The transition will be rocky for a time but I stay excited about where we are heading after. Look after one another, stay humble and show respect to all, pray for our enemies.
Good Luck with instituting that. America will bypass the Police and snuff out the culprits. Guess they don’t remember the last attempted fallouts?
A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep
This dismantling of our Civil Society and Constitutional Protections WILL continue. Count on it.
Problem here is US citizen are cowards,
1.) fondling your women
2.) stealing your shit
3.) finger-banging granny and infants
4.) slapping little girls
5.) stealing your shit
Any of the above in 90% of the world and the COP is a dead man, and his family. But in the USA, like Israel they are clever that the COP lives in another town, and he's not a local boy.
Once you nazify or israelify a POLICE then the citizens are fucked.
But remember the problem here is that like ZH its not fight club its man-twat club, and the USA men are all docile pussy's, yes even in UKRAINE people don't take shit from cop's, they fight back, but in the USA they let the cops litterally fuck them to death and ask for more,...
The entire USA system is RAPE from birth to death, and in the middle is 'edoocation', why do people put up with it? Because they're told its the same everywhere else, ... IT IS FUCKING NOT
Our Military is enormously pissed off with this administration. It’s a ticking clock ready to strike twelve. The Black Book of Communism players won’t even have time to book a flight out of US using Priceline.com website. This shit is that deep folks.
The Fascists are gathering information and preparing lists of dissidents to round up. Have a bugout plan ready.
Shhhhhh, Can you keep a secret? Google wants to close the contract on providing (LEA) Law Enforcement Agencies with Google Glasses uniform detail. Data mining will become so much easier for both parties. Winks
Untrue. Cops live in local neighborhoods here, drive home their cars, parked right outside home. Everyone knows where they live.
Revolution will come. Not quite as bad here as the rest of the world you exaggerate a lot, but that's why we are "behind". And when the revolution comes, and we, America, will fix things here, the rest of the world will follow us. Watch and learn.
If that were true they would have done it by now.
The first sign of trouble and they'll scream "call the cops!" even if it IS the cops who are the trouble.
They're multi-generational EBT-dependent sheep.
Problem here is US citizen are cowards,
It seems, you are a complete intellectual idiot. Please relinquish your balls to said po-po station around the corner sharing 7-11 rent and convenience. Statism exists everywhere on this globe even in your minimal hippocampus. Stop throwing AIPAC around like you know what you might be typing about you unpolitical zombi of all to common rebellious thought. Grow a sac and form your own twat club for lactose intolerant pseudos. Dickhead.
This is what you get with 44%(Crypto Sotomayor) of the US Supreme Court being of the "tribe", and the rest being blackmailed. Yeah, you think they went divided on this one, wait for the other foot to drop.
Best kept secret is that there are 1,000 citizens to every cop in the USA, and thus the citizens out-number cop's, but TV and BULLSHIT from AIPAC has turned cop's against citizens.
But make NO fucking mistake if USA-MAN could find his ball's, this problem could be recitified 1000 to 1.
Like the Joker said "what happened, your balls fall off?"
lol. dude you don't even know the kind of heat they packin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c
@satoshi
~~~
Why the fuck is it that you bring up AIPAC in about half of your stupid ass posts?
The correct line is: "What happened, your balls drop off?"
Whats with your political hard on for AIPAC? Save your shallow knowledge of AIPAC rants for Venezuela and Cuba communism. Like Spankrupt said "what happened, you have no scruples".
Never in my life did I think I'd be on the same side as Ginsberg and Sotamayor. But here I am!
No this is america, this is not some 3rd world Zionist country San Francisco Police Officers Indicted in Federal Probe Wall Street Journal - 16 minutes ago SAN FRANCISCO—Five city police officers and one former officer have been indicted by a federal grand jury in a wide-ranging scandal involving allegations of stealing money and electronics from suspects, dealing drugs and unlawfully searching low-rent ...
Israel does admirable job protecting its citizens, you don't know what your're talking about. If Israel was like US, Muslims would set the agenda for everything like they they do in UK, Belgium, Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands.
What citizens? Palestine is the real nation and its citizens are enslaved and imprisoned by the invaders, and they call the prison Israel.
There is no Israel.
@satoshi
~~~
Why the fuck is it that you bring up AIPAC in about half of your stupid ass posts?
& have recently put a 'STAR OF DAVID' as your avatar...
What's your fucking deal?
If Satoshi's hypothesis is correct, which is the result of his 30 years of research, then it is pretty much all about AIPAC.
Fred,
Try 50 years of research, and it always go back to the same place,
Only 50 years ago today that AZC(AIPAC) murdered JFK and got away with it, and distracted everyone with all kinds of bullshit conspiracy theory's,
But it was even clear in 1913, and 1933 that ZIONISTS HAD made the hair-lip american their bitch.
Sorry about that. 50 years!
Maybe you could point to a map pre 1948 that showed the country "Palestine".
If by invaded you mean that Israel was legally chartered by the league of nations, then yea.
And they're enslaved if you really mean that they come and go freely and many work in Israel but have to hide the fact so they are not murdered by a radical thug.
Foolish propaganda straight from radicals to your mouth.
People forget and have twisted facts around. But I remember. I remember the daily bombings.
I remember the peace offers only to be stabbed by jack wagons like Arafat.
I also remember Israel's over reactions. Their transgressions. No one objective would claim Israel has always acted justly.
You can't travel back in time and change what the league of nations did.
You can't force Lebanon and Jordan to give up land that was also carved out and given to them in 1948.
You can question the wisdom of it but they are there and your comment does not reflect reality.
Your comments reflect propaganda. It is a tactic by radical thugs that seek Israels destruction.
They have literally changed history in the minds of the young. And those that aren't able to reason very well.
map here:
http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antigua-Palestina-Palaestina-5431.jpg
this map was made around the time the bible was freshly printed.
"You can't travel back in time and change what the league of nations did.
You can't force Lebanon and Jordan to give up land that was also carved out and given to them in 1948"
Yes we can.
We march in every tank & fire every missile until the invaders leave or the land can't be used ever again.
Period. Just like hitting Sarajevo with depleted uranium.
Slam it till they give or the land is dead.
And it's not Lebanon & Jordan that were given land, they lost land.
Israel is an invading force, invalid, and can be erased, and must be erased.
This is not a question of Jews & semites:
many indigenous people of the world have lost their lands in South America, Asia, Africa & Australia as well as NORTH AMERICA.
http://youtu.be/Cj0HVR3-yLA
Those lands must also be restored, invaders removed.
It appears that the women are the only ones that have a clue at SCOTUS.
We're fucked nine ways to Sunday.
Cue misogyny in 3...2...1
The USA, a good place to stay away from.
I used to live there and don't anymore. Don't miss it although I do miss some of the people, they do have some good people there.
United States of America is a great place to live. We just have to break the planned interconnected events that are scheduled to take place via Kenyan Negro in WH.
Obama is on the "planning committee," just a pawn.
What's considered a reasonable consent search? A subjective incursion into your home via divide and conquer tactics. Militarization of the police continues with the consent of the USSC.
Comin to a town near you: 1 suitcase, cattle cars and Bakken ovens.
snitchin bitches get stitchez bitchez
I think you are misreading the comment when you bolded this:
“A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,”
This is a common case where a resident says, "Sure come on in I have nothing to hide", or in this case, "Please come in and get whatever you need to keep that violent bastard away from me." Now, maybe it's never a great idea to give that consent, but maybe sometimes the situation calls for it, and what else are you going to say, that ALL entries into a home by cops require a warrant? Would that really help anybody or anything?
What's really disgusting to me is this:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – joined in the minority by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, marking a gender divide among the Justices in the case – wrote the dissenting opinion, calling the decision a blow to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
You'd think that under the heading of "women's issues" any gender divide here would be in favor of the woman and would join the majority, after all the case described here is common enough. But no, the three women "justices" showed their colors, and they are red against the blue of the police. "Police are all evil bastards," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to the press later, after six jello shots. "Better all the women in the country get beat up every day, than I support anything a cop wants." She's senile enough not to know what century she's in, but Kagan and Sotomayor? OMG. What is the SCOTUS going to do to us next, when they vote in the majority?
You have no idea what her frame of mind was at the time. If she was compromised by trauma, her judgement may have been impaired.
sounds to me like if she said no, asshole would stay, cops would leave, and he'd beat her half to death.
In this case I think everyone made the right call except the asshole who beats women & robs people for gangs.
Exactly, Cops should have the right to enter a home where there is reasonable cause to suspect a violent crime is being committed, in order to prevent someone, usually female from being beaten, killed or raped.
You would have to be a retard to think the cops should just stand outside the door and listen to this occurring.
They do have that right, the case here is a little more involved.
Fernandez was spotted by police, and said, “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.” Yet police arrested him on charges of domestic violence. Later, once Fernandez was out of the home, police asked Rojas for permission to conduct a search, which yielded evidence implicating Fernandez in the robbery
Fernandez was wrong. With evidence of violence they were well within the law to come in and grab him. But here's the thing, he had sort of denied them entrance before. They pulled him out under another reason. Then they asked the resident remaining for permission. But, what about the previous denial, by the perp? That, apparently, is the issue.
I don't know the precedents, IANAL. Since he was apparently the perp and couldn't keep them from grabbing him anyway, is his denial no good anyway? Did he ever deny them permission to SEARCH? Did they want to search initially because of the violence, or because of suspicion of robbery? What then of his denial? It's on something like these legalistic questions, I gather, that the case got to SCOTUS. And the fact that it did get to SCOTUS means either the law is after all vague, or it was handled by a series of dumb judges beforehand, or both. Again, I don't think the decision is nearly as surprising as the position of the three female "justices", who from this I don't think would know justice if it came up and bit them on their hineys.
stalinist nation is here.
I AM a conservative lawyer. This decision is not surprising particularly, but it is shocking that those I have dismissed have pulled me up short. Who am it today. I must rethink some 50 years at the bar.
This is yet another infringement of that most basic human right, the right to hold private property either guaranteed by government protection or to defend it ourselves - which we're not allowed to do...
Don’t fall into another progressive trap. Basic human rights are covered under the US Constitution. Flanking new laws under terrorist threats divides the human rights clause. The cheese in the mousetrap has been set, they hope you flock to an international law to sort out the issues.
Don’t be duped on a malpractice of central planning tactics.
And the country has it coming to them. To far gone. You talking to random people in travel about what's going on? No your not. You and I know, but that's it
Just get on with it and repeal that Constitution thingy. Why go to the trouble of dismantling it piece by piece? The public will forget within a matter of days.
Your right Straw. That's how dumbed we are that it wouldn't matter at this very moment.
Take heart amigos. The "zeitgeist" is not as true as they want you to believe. There are more of us than there are of them but if you watch tv or listen to radio (especially talk radio) then you will think you are alone and in the besieged minority. Bullshit! They had to buy up all media just to fake it. Do not buy in to it!
Here piggy piggy piggy...BANG! Take that mother fucker!
A simple hunting exercise of course. Pork the other white meat.
Germantown, TN police beat the locks off of my doors because my ex-mother in law was afraid I had had a heart attack and died . When I asked who was going to pay for the new doors and locks they asked why I was complaining about them just trying to save my life.
Apparantly, the government lays claim to everything now.(including your life) Am I the only one who understands this?
I didn't hear them when they were beating the deadbolt off my security door but when they started hitting the wood door with a sledgehammer I jumped up out of bed in my underwear and ran to the front of the house just as policeman number one was shouldering his way in. My ex-mother in law was right behind elbowing her way screaming, "have you been drinking!, have you been drinking!"
So the 19th amendment is at the heart of our troubles? Whocuddanod?
Deflator, just do the favor for her!
The search wasn't unreasonable at all- the dude was in custody on a valid arrest for domestic violence, ergo, not in his home anymore. Validly.
Jesus, people, give it a thought before sounding off. There are sooooo many better examples of the powers that be trampling our rights. Now, back to the NSA threads!
Because you are arrested means you are guilty? Domestic violence? Domestic violence laws are a circumvention of due process, ostensibly to protect ,"victims". Am I the only one who understands due process? If you are charged with domestic violence, even if there is no evidence of domestic violence, then you, unlike murderers have no right to due process.
You can't even plead not guilty and have a right to a jury trial without due process. Domestic violence laws, "assume" you are guilty.
The government can drag your ass around in courts for years before they will dismiss a domestic violence case.
Judges don't want the risk of you killing someone on their head.
Super, mega homely looking prosecuter walks in and glares straight at me all the way to her seat in front of the court. Dad asks, "is that your prosecutor? yep. "oh shit" "daaaang" "yer in deep shit son".
"maybe you should sell some of that gold and hire a lawyer":
wrong. the search was not, at all, incident to his arrest. They were not looking for evidence of the crime of domestic violence. They were searching for evidence of the prior alleged crime, which they would not have been able to do without a warrant, unless the woman gave her consent to search.
Assuming the property is in common, I honestly don't see why one person can't admit the police. It might be different {I don't know} and probably should be different where, say, I rent a room in a house... my roommates can/should be able to consent to a search of the common areas and their bedrooms, but not mine.
I can also understand the "let them get a warrant" argument, but I'm not sure why the other tenant loses the power to consent to a search just because the objecting tenant is a suspect. I dunno.
Just seems like there have been far worse decisions in recent years and I think even this year. This seems like a bizarre case to hold up as representative of the shredding of the Bill of Rights.
That shit started well before 9/11, they just started stepping on the gas then.
Bullshit.
Spent too much time reading these comments, so it would be a waste if I didn't type one of my own.
When push comes to shove, which it will, it appears that no "side" is prepared for the task of saving the Principle while enduring the reset of expectations to get there.
Chaos has infected the ZH commentariat now, too.
RIP USA!
Just want to add my small thought on this. Fuck this fascist sick president and fuck his NSA and fuck all the suck ass cops. Oh sure, they protect me, right? America is now a sick and evil nation. How in fuck all do we get off running Ukraine when this nation is a corporate fuck hole and getting worse as bakers spread their power to all corners of America? Why do I say fuck the cops, well, because they just serve to enforce the corporate dictatorship, and all they serve for is money and the sick little power trip they get from kicking hte little people in the balls.
What's the problem? The government are criminals. The courts are employees of the government. Should people expect anything different?
What's the problem? The government are criminals. The courts are employees of the government. Should people expect anything different?
You can try posting to @SCOTUS twitter page. Mine have been censored out. When you only see your tweet replies on someone elses twitter page and see no other reply tweets, it means your tweets were censored and are invisible to others. I'm a victim of profiling...visit too many sites that serve real news.
You're already putting your life on the line by calling the COP's in the first place.
I think this article is yellow journalism. The title is misleading. The Court isn't striking the 4th down. They are describing a particular situation. The 4th isn't the issue. It is the consent part. I would say the owner can give consent or not regardless if he is present. When the police knock on the door and you don't answer, if they enter without a warrant they should be charged with breaking and entering. If the live-in girl friend shows up at the door with a freshly bloodied face they enter based on probable cause of a crime and arrest the boyfriend. In my opinion if after the boyfriend is arrested, it turns out she is not on the lease (not an owner in a sense) then her consent is worthless. Basically, a non-owner cannot give consent for a warrantless search.
An example might be if an underage dependent of the owner is home alone, can the kid give consent while the owner is at work? No way. If not a kid, but a house guest, their consent is /should be worthless.
Without consent or probable cause the Court reaffirms a warrant is needed. It appears there might be an assumption of a "heat of the moment". Does probable cause have an urgency time element? I would like to see the consent allowed only during the heat of the moment. If the search is not in response to a moment of immediate danger, then in my opinion, consent from anyone is not even considered; a warrantless consent search would be illegal.
Most "journalism" today is "yellow journalism". Has been for about a decade or more. Just taking awhile for people to realize it because they only read the news from outlets they politically align with.
The decision was not based on entering during emergency situations which the cops already have the power to do. The court ruled an occupant has the right to give consent to a search when the owner is out. No limits were placed. That means they can rifle thru the belongings of other occupants and have opportunity to plant evidence.
Last I checked the SCUS did not make the rules at the Lmo Mutton house.
Aren't the police allowed to enter a structure without warrant if they feel there are "Exigent Circumstances" which reading this case I could make a case for that conclusion being drawn by officers? Not that I'm for warrantless searches but this doesn't sound like ground breaking situation that it is being made out to be.
We want to arrest you because we think you commited a robbery.
Sorry but you can't come in my house unless you have a warrant.
Okay in that case you're under arrest on an unrelated charge that we just made up. Seeing as you're now no longer on your property we're going to go ahead and search for evidence on the initial charge. Guess what we just found what we were looking for to begin with without a warrant and you are going to jail for a very long time.
What could possibly go wrong witht this decision other than it being used as precedent for every conceivable bad act that can be imagined by steroid deranged cops.
Coming next to a neighborhood near you; SWAT teams conduction house by house searches for rogue jaywalkers.
So this means, If you tick off a Traffic Cop, he and his buddies can invite themselves in, seize anything they want and claim your a Terrorist Suspect.
Cool......What year is it 1984 ?
I never believed Americans would roll over like a pooch on his back and allow themselves to be treated this way by people who are working for YOU !! Its disgusting
Americans were given the Second Amendment to protect and preseve the Fourth !
I don't see what the problem is. It looks like clear Probable Cause to me.
The police were on the premises to question him about his possible involvement in a robbery and interupted a crime in progress; domestic violence.
The perp needs to stop dealing drugs and robbing people, and he also needs to stop beating his wife.
I agree: what the cops actually found was a crime in progress (imho) and they could act on that.
BUT, THAT ONE CASE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO TRASH THE 4TH AMENDMENT!
The police still protect and serve. The only problem is that it is the State that the police protect and it is the State that the police serve. This long drawn out slow motion train wreck that is our economic collapse is engineered solely to give the State time to prepare. Prepare for what you might ask,,, Well, I will leave that up to you to decide.
New acronym: PISSANT - People In SuitS Are Not Trustworthy. Or, as the Godfather said: One PISSANT with a briefcase can steal more money than a thousand men with guns. ;-D
This case "precedent" will be cited in future cases which would otherwise not stand on their own. Thus begins the attack on the protections offered by the 4th Amendment. When I tried to sue my lawyers in Louisville KY for legal malpractice, even though the trial court opined that "this court concludes these attorneys were negligent...", the case went nowhere. The court relied on a totally unrelated precedent case from 20 years earlier as a "get out jail free card" for these lawyers, basically opining that my loses were "speculative", even though there were definite material issues of fact that could be calculated to the penny using standard accounting and IRS methodolgy. Thus in a similiar way cases can be thrown through abuse of summary judgment using the argument that the issues are speculative
We can expect a gradual layering of new case law which enables warrantless searches.
What do you expect? Justice is a cabal. The judges, DAs, lawyers, police, even the clerks and janitors are in on it. THEY TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN FIRST!!! I disowned this government when they decided that punishments for assaults on "public servants" should be more severe then for citizens in general. ALSO, THE POLICE ARE A "CIVILIAN FORCE". They are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Fuck them all.
Of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government, justice (the Ministry of Love) is certainly equal in corruption and self-service. How they get a pass is beyond me. You should be preparing, because you can be certain they have been using the time since 2008 to harden their facilities and forces.
Wow, Sotomayor sticking up for the fourth amendment. I wouldn't have guessed that I would like one of her opinions.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Police should only be making sure policies are followed. Police do not know what is wrong or right, they are there to make sure laws would be followed. If police does something good, like saving someones life, he/she is doing it because he/she is a good person.
Now you guys have let loose people, who can not tell the difference between good and bad, to do what they wish. They have all the authority to do so and you can not do anything about it. Good luck.
"There is no such thing as justice, in or out of court" Clarence Darrow
So whats next... they will change the laws so a vampire can come into my house without me inviting her in and I get sucked dry? Er.. wait a minute, Im already getting sucked dry... never mind.
The three branches of "government":
-----
1: predators
2: predators
3: predators
That about sums it up.
I hope they have better armor than I do - or maybe I should say, I hope I have better amor plate than they do - either way, a very very bad decision - nothing new from the Supremes; they are not working for Americans, same as Con Gress.
I've been trying like all get out to remember WHEN the last law past by (viet) Cong ress has passed a bill that was good for the American people - I can't remember when that was.
We have been infiltrated.