Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches
cold fjord writes with news that the Supreme Court has expanded the ability of police officers to search a home without needing a warrant, quoting the LA Times: "Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday ... The 6-3 ruling ... gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency. The majority ... said police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters ... warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches."
In this case, one person objected to the search and was arrested followed by the police returning and receiving the consent of the remaining occupant.
If you consent to a search what is the point of requiring a warrant anyway?
Anybody in their right mind would just tell the pigs to fuck off and get a warrant but I digress.
Now anyone can invite the jackbooted thugs into your home!
...I thought this was the law anyways. I never realized that n-contents were required for an n-resident facility. Of course, I'd like more clarification on occupant: Does my dog giving the "Pet me! Pet me!" look count as an occupant? Does crazy, drunk uncle Bill staying the weekend count?
Step 1: Just take them downtown for questioning
Step 2: search the premise...ANYWAY.
Step 3: Profit!
All I am getting out of this ruling is that I should never let police into my house for any reason. If they need to use a phone they can use it from my porch and if I don't have window blinds then they can stand on the lawn.
I don't have anything illegal in my home and I don't do anything illegal in my home but who knows what a policeman will see that he trumps up into some charge right before my eyes.
No. Forget it.
"I'm sorry it's 110 degrees outside today, officer. I'd invite you in, but I can't trust you not to see something innocuous and turn it into a prison sentence."
Cop: What's that, Lassie?
Lassie: WOOF!
Cop: You say it's okay for us to look in Timmy's room for a NICE JUICY STEAK?
Timmy: Now just a darn --
Lassie: WOOF!
Cop: Good girl! Step aside, Timmy...
Koans and fables for the software engineer
If I object to the search then they arrest me and take me away. Then come back and ask my wife if they can search the house... If she objects do they arrest her too or consent.
If nobody is then in the house they can easily get a warrant because, hey, both occupants were arrested for obstructing justice so they must be hiding something and nobody is there ANYWAY so it's probably a "good idea"(tm) for the judge to issue a warrant to make sure everythings, y'know, SAFE for neighborhood children.
You libertarians make this seem like a really big deal, but there's a simple solution: if you want to be absolutely sure the police can't enter your home when they come knocking, just kill everyone else inside before answering the door.
Person objects to a search. Roommate allows search. Subsequently, person sues roommate for allowing the violation of his privacy.
If you have a roommate, you'd better have an agreement (maybe even written) about who is allowed to do what when it involves each others property and legal rights.
Have gnu, will travel.
You should probably read the definition of treason before making a fool of yourself in public.
Too late now, of course, but maybe next time.
I wonder if this means that a visiting relative or friend can allow the police to search your place without the owners or listed tenant consent? I certainly think owners listed on a deed or listed tenants on a lease/rental agreement would be the only ones authorized to do that, not just somebody living there. I think this ruling means that if one person says no consent that all people living there need to follow suit. This is definitely a bad ruling though because how was the search related to the crime? Did he use the shotgun or flash gang signs when he did it? It just seems like "oh sure, we found a shotgun and a bandana he's a bad guy" vs "we found the stolen loot." Sure he was given 14 years for the robbery and justice prevails but our rights now are further diminished.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I don't like the ruling, but the article implies that if anyone present objects, the police have no right to enter.
This ruling is a great boon for vampires
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Sure you can deny it. Just make sure you live alone and the sole owner of your residence. That won't stop the cops from sniffing around though and looking for a reason to enter.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
What are you, some kind of moron? Read the friggin' blockquote. That is what it means, that is how I used it, and I stand by it. Anyone who intentionally erodes the freedoms that the many, many, many, brave soldiers of the past gave their life to protect, are treasoners. Period.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
treason
trzn/
noun
1. the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
I'm pretty sure that betraying the constitution is betraying the country.
On the internet, "treason" means "doing something I don't agree with in the political realm".
The first two words of the headline are "Supreme Court", yet the parent poster refers to "the judge in this case". So either they slept through 9th grade Social Studies or haven't gotten to 9th grade yet.
"I'm sorry it's 110 degrees outside today, officer. I'd invite you in, but I can't trust you not to see something innocuous and turn it into a prison sentence."
Long story short, the cops searched my in-laws (VERY long story but they were victims) and upon seeing one of those deodorant rocks, confiscated it. We're in Georgia and the cops were white Southern stereotypes. I don't think it would have been a problem in California.
The other thing is that everyone in the US of A commits three felenies a day on average. So, yes it IS quite probable that if the cops search your home they WILL find something - I don't care who you are.
We're getting close to the point of not needing a warrant or consent at all.
Anyone want to lay bets on when that will finally happen? I'm sadly not optimistic that it may not happen in my lifetime.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I for one welcome our Stasi overlords and their SCOTUS enablers
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Being the sole owner isn't enough. Anyone who lives there can give consent.
Have a baby sitter or housekeeper who you allow into your home while you are not there?
Guess what? They now have the ability to allow the police in to do a search without your explicit consent.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Nobody else can give someone permission to search my domicile. Period.
Not if you are married. It is no longer just YOUR home and YOUR stuff. Now it is, as we would say in the South, Y'ALL home and Y'ALL stuff. Your wife would have just as much of a right to consent to the search.
No the new law seems to apply to a GF or any resident in the home, which I'm thinking goes too far.
I can see cops dangling candy to kids through the cat-flap in return for allowing them to enter. You may giggle but you know its going to happen.
As a European I am constantly astounded by how much the US government despises its own people.
I'll be curious to see who is considered an "occupant" under these rules. The big danger I see here is in police knocking on a door that is answered by a child who is either a) intimidated by an authority figure, or b) conditioned per traditional social norms, to say "okay" when asked a question. Would a housekeeper or other non-resident count? What about a neighbor or other person who happens to be on the property at the time? And since this ruling applies to non-emergency situations, can officers sit watching a house to determine when they will have the best chance of getting an occupant that will consent? I realize these seem like edge cases, but the real world has a habit of not fitting traditional expectations.
The worst part of this is that it seems to continue the unfortunate trend (already evidenced in an earlier post) that you cannot trust the police for anything, and that this needs to be taught as young as possible to prevent a child from opening the door - both literally and figuratively - to potential trouble. As I heard recently, the proper answer for when a law enforcement officer asks you the time is "I'm sorry, I'll have to consult my lawyer"... what a shame.
Screw that. The cops don't need to find the people who are actually on the lease. They don't need to find who paid the last rent check. That is not their job. All they have to do, and SHOULD have to do, is get approval from an occupant to enter the place to search. If the woman, who had just been beaten by her boyfriend, wanted to say no, she could have, and that would have been that.
Or maybe she thought, "Hey, NOW'S a perfect opportunity to get rid of that scumbag once and for all. Come on in, Coppers!" Which they did, and now that jerk is serving 14 years behind bars. Good for her.
Ask Person #1 "Do you consent to a search?"
Violent arrest takedown for "Obstruction" of Person #1
Ask Person #2 "Do you consent to a search?"
Violent arrest takedown for "Obstruction" of Person #2
Ask Person #3 "Do you consent to a search?"
"Sure, don't tase me bro"
"In this case, one person objected to the search and was arrested followed by the police returning and receiving the consent of the remaining occupant. "
Or you are a dick-headed asshole. "the judge in this case" vs. "the judges in this case" OH! OH! He missed an S!!!! He must be stupid!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I forgot to mention. Look up the definition of the word treason you frigging idiot. I used it correctly.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Being the sole owner isn't enough. Anyone who lives there can give consent.
Have a baby sitter or housekeeper who you allow into your home while you are not there?
Guess what? They now have the ability to allow the police in to do a search without your explicit consent.
Sounds rather like vampires.
Clearly you need to be more careful on who you take on as a roommate. If the police show up and your roommate is ignorant of your activities and lets them in then it is your own damn fault.
Yes, so that makes you a traitor, by your own definition. You are promoting the eroding and denial of the freedom of that woman, who had just been beaten by this guy, to allow the cops to search the house in which SHE ALSO WAS A RESIDENT.
"Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence," Alito wrote for the court.
Promoting otherwise, by your own definition, makes you a traitor.
If you live with someone, that person also lives there and it is also his home. That person can give permission to search the domicile. That you said no is irrelevant if you are not there to object because you were arrested for a crime. Remember, he was not arrested for saying no to the search, he was arrested for robbery.
You do not have final say if the place you live can be searched if you are not the only person who lives there.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Using your logic, the person allowing the search is also incriminating themselves.
Nobody else can give someone permission to search my domicile. Period.
Not if you are married. It is no longer just YOUR home and YOUR stuff. Now it is, as we would say in the South, Y'ALL home and Y'ALL stuff. Your wife would have just as much of a right to consent to the search.
No the new law seems to apply to a GF or any resident in the home, which I'm thinking goes too far.
You don't sound Southern. First, because "Y'ALL home" is what you yell out when you drop in unexpectedly, not a term of possession. Secondly, you think that the little woman has rights.
Allowing the searching a house with the consent of one of the occupants" is not "betraying one's country." It's an interpretation of what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure.
The fact that you don't agree with that interpretation does not make it treason.
The fact that you think it does is what is making you look like a fool.
That, if someone's ex-husband who is still legally a part owner of the house but not a real resident, consents to the search, what happens?
Throw in a motive to plant evidence on the ex, along with reasonable, if limited access, and this leads to some very real problems.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Nope, vampires can only get consent from the home owner.
Not exactly. If one has told one's housekeeper and/or baby sitter they are not to allow anyone in the house, they do not have authority to authorize a search. They also don't have the authority to allow a search if they are not present and no one is at the home or if they are present and an actual resident is at the home. Even if one has not given explicit instructions to domestic help, it is a gray area as to whether one's help can give consent to a search.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Good for her.
Result: The cops can now sit in a van waiting for the owner to go out for milk before they knock on the door and ask the remaining weak-willed/simpleton residents to search the house.
Sometimes it's better to let a guilty man go free than to pass bad (ie. abusable) laws to catch him.
No sig today...
The cops don't need to find the people who are actually on the lease. They don't need to find who paid the last rent check.
You're right, they don't—as long as they have a warrant. If they're going to claim consent, however, then it needs to be from someone with the right to give consent, which means the actual, verified owner of the property, or someone to whom the owner has consciously delegated that right.
Otherwise they wouldn't need consent at all. Anyone could give it for any search, meaning that the police could just give themselves consent.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Every law that is ever passed "erodes freedoms".
The Supreme Court by definition (according to Marbury v Madison and the principle of Judicial Review) cannot violate the constitution with one of their rulings, either-- however they decide is considered to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution.
Not only that, I believe there is a principle that makes judges immune to prosecution for a ruling that they give.
He was correct to criticize your use of treason.
No, you didnt. A judge CANNOT commit treason by way of a ruling.
Because after all, if your door is locked, you *must* have something to hide.....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
That line carried a lot of weight with me too. She was a resident of the home, and had the right to admit or deny entry to the police, even over the other resident's objection. I guess the moral of the story is make sure the people you live with are equally complicit in your crimes.
It's not only people who live there, but if my estranged cousin from Sri Lanka (who are well-known for their ignorance of US law) is visiting and invites the cops in, they can come in and there's no longer any legal grounds to fight the resulting arrest on the basis of illegal search.
Any occupant at all. I wonder if my dog could consent...
The Supreme Courts rulings are considered to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Have a problem with it, take it up with the 1802 Supreme Court.
People gotta wake up and remember that the supreme court is supposed to act as a check and balance. We shouldn't be letting cases like this get to the Supreme Court at all... we need to be getting in touch with our legislators at the state and federal level and letting them know that we need privacy legislation.
Screw that. The cops don't need to find the people who are actually on the lease. They don't need to find who paid the last rent check. That is not their job. All they have to do, and SHOULD have to do, is get approval from an occupant to enter the place to search.
Nope. They should have to get a warrant, or have reasonable suspicion that there was something illegal on the premises.
In this case they'd just arrested the owner on suspicion of robbery and taken him away. That's reasonable suspicion and should be given as the reason they entered the house, not because somebody else opened the door for them and let them in.
No sig today...
Does the court define what an occupant is? Could an occupant be anybody currently in the residence or does it need to be someone who resides in the residence? If so, seems that neighbors are a dangerous commodity these days.
I think a baby sitter or housekeeper (unless they're live in) can't be considered a resident.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I just got a mental image of cold fjord's orgasm face when he pressed the submit button for this story. Ewww!
So in the future, when both parents object and their 4 year old daughter is separated from them and then intimidated into agreeing to let people search the family's home, does that still sound like a reasonable loophole that only exists to be abused?
The correct way would be if anyone objects, no searches can be done without warrant. In fact, no searches should be done without warrant ever. If there is a strong need, feel free to get your search order approved by a judge.
It's not reasonable to be intimidated into doing anything.
This effectively removes the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure: Just keep arresting and hauling away occupants until one of the remaining occupants gets too scared to invoke his Constitutional right.
All six Justices who voted for this need to be impeached for treason.
this is not news
Its been happening for pretty much since the country was founded.
Just remember, all a cop has to do is yell "he's going for my gun!" in order to legally kill you. If there isn't a video he gets away with it 100% of the time, if there is he still gets away with it 90% of the time and is only punished if he did something in the past that embarrassed a higher up.
What the court did, was provide a pretext for the government to pretend that the fourth amendment doesn't say what it says. A right remains a right, even when it is violated.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Better yet, the cops can wait for a hobo to break in and then ask him for permission, as he is now an "occupant".
You refuse to let utility company access a piece of in-home equipment.
Utility goes thru legal hoops to compel access.
While utility is on-premise police ask utility workers if it is ok to search your home without a warrant.
I give consent for the cops to give you a full-body cavity search, without the lube. They can check afterwards if I actually have the right to give that consent.
Not so. If your estranged cousin is staying with you but you both have separate rooms, then your cousin can only authorize a search of your cousin's room and the common areas. YOUR room can't be searched because your cousin can't give permission to search that room because it is your private space. This is actual case law and has been used to have evidence tossed out.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Resident != Occupant, and an unchallenged occupants consent is all that is required per this case and Georgia v Randolph
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
So, anyone who lives with someone else or is a woman is "weak-willed" or a simpleton"?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I sure hope that by "occupant" they mean "someone having legal control over the property, as in a lessee or tenant" rather than simply "someone who just happens to be in the home at the time of the search."
No, exactly.
In Georgia v. Randolph SCOTUS held that when there was one occupant present who did not give consent, that did not allow the police to conduct a search despite the consent from another resident.
In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.
Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.
Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact... because when your 14 year old daughter who thinks you are ruining their life, the wife who is angry at you for forgetting your anniversary, or the housekeeper who is also steeling the silver gives consent... your non-objection at the time of request will allow the police in.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
An occupant's right to waive their rights overrides any other occupant's right to uphold their rights.
y'all is singular (or a single group like a sports team) . ALL y'all is plural.
I'm surprised you didn't include the "treasonable" offense of fucking the kings's wife. In the US, treason applies only to a very specific set of circumstances,
....what about the Civil Rights Act, genius? Does granting guaranteed rights to people restrict freedom? Does protecting people from harm restrict freedom? You can still break the law. You just get charged for it when caught. The problem here is that police can assume a position of power over people who have no defense from it. They can come into your home and declare you a drug dealer b/c three people have cold medication in their bathrooms. They can seize the guns you had out to clean b/c they weren't secured. They can plant evidence. They should not get to decide whether they can enter what is supposed to be a private residence.
The Supreme Court rulings are considered correct by the supreme court. This doesn't actually give any indication of correctness.
Y'all is correct for a couple.
However, in this case, it's possessive, so should be y'all's.
Yes they can. They may not be prosecutable but certainly from a moral stand point there's nothing stopping a judge commiting treason by a ruling
He would not be a legal occupant, no. However, they could enter if they witnessed a hobo breaking in, since they have very good cause to believe that there is a crime in progress.
Anybody whom the police believe is a lawful occupant of the premises (not merely a guest) is allowed to permit a search. This is long-standing law.
The only precedent, I presume, is that one occupant first refused, was later arrested on a related issue, and the police returned to ask the next occupant.
There's room for disagreement there (the case was 6-3), but this is not a huge precedent.
It has often been the hallmark of "sneaky children" to ask another parent when the first parent says "no." This is rightly viewed as unethical behavior and is disrespectful of the authority of a parent.
In this case, it is the police who are being disrespectful of the rights of a person who lawfully refuses an illegal search. It is important to note that it is not illegal for police to lie to people. The means that they might likely say "the other person said ____ but to be more complete, I would just like to get your consent on this before proceeding."
Everyone needs to collect their families or their room mates together and agree the answer is ALWAYS "NO!" regardless of what police tell you. A warrant should ALWAYS be acquired prior to a search if only because a warrant requires a certain degree of specificity as to what they are looking for.
Can a landlord give consent to search a tenant? (Supposing the landlord doesn't live there.)
A four year old can't legally consent to anything.
Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.
You do not support this statement with law, case or otherwise.
Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact
Please support this with case law showing a person moved to throw out evidence obtained under those circumstances and the motion was denied.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Fernandez objected to a search, Fernandez was arrested, and Rojas consented to a search an hour later.
At what point does Fernandez's objection to a search become invalid? If the cops came back one year later for a different issue, and only Rojas was home, I think most people would agree that Fernandez's objection would no longer be valid. How do you define when the objection is no longer valid?
I think the Supreme Court got this case wrong because the police were trying to conduct the same search, but how do you define that legally?
Did you miss the part that said "Just make sure you live alone" dipshit?
im going to make it my personal mission to take a shit on each justice's grave-site when they finally die of natural causes..
So if a cop wants to search without a warrant, just arrest one person, then tell the remaining one, "well we could haul you downtown too, or you can give us consent, and we'll leave you out of it"...yeah that's an awesome precedent.
... is now complete. Or is there anything else the government thinks they need? If so, surely they won't have any trouble getting Scalia and company to make up something else they think they see in the Constitution.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
This is correct, and I thank you for pointing it out. People use Y'all incorrectly way too often.
Asking a woman who lives there, weak-willed simpleton or not, who is ALSO A RESIDENT if it is OK to search is perfectly reasonable. It's not a bad law, and shocked as I am to say it I entirely agree with Alito's reasoning on this.
He isn't a resident. SCOTUS specifically claimed that these folks were residents. If the cops got an assent from a hobo, and searched, any evidence they found would be thrown out because he wasn't a legal resident.
Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You hit the nail on the head. Now your landlord can consent to searches. More people rent than own, especially in poor neighborhoods. Now its just pick up a phone, call the landlord and ask permission, then go in, without the consent of the actual dwellers.
Always fun when someone requests what they themselves didn't provide.
As I said earlier:
Clearly you didn't RTFA... as this case is about just that.
One occupant refused consent, was later arrested and the remaining occupant provided consent... which in turn allowed the police to search the property.
Why not ask for a purple & green elephant that is wearing a tutu, eating a ice cream cone while singing the star spangled banner?
When you attempt to frame your request in such a way, you aren't likely to get many hits... and it is rather deceptive to attempt that when trying to have a discussion.
What I described above was a series of circumstances beyond your own based on a little thinking and understanding of the law (note how you still haven't cited anything contrary to anything I've said?).
In People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama and plenty more, the courts have upheld the idea of a minor being able to grant permission (often depending on circumstances).
United States v Rith is also a good read as it applies to adult children, even discussing some circumstances where a third-party consent may not be valid, rent paying (Chapman v. United States), lock on door (United States v. Kinney), or explicit agreement... which was mentioned as a possibility (rather than as a specific citation of such a case), so given United States v. Morning and others, it is not to much to believe that even a paper agreement may not invalidate the results of a third-party consented search.
Sorry for having to do your job and thinking for you.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Good luck in 9th grade next year.
of tenants rights.
Landlord can give consent, he owns the property. Now he can accuse tenants of wrongdoing, and ASK the police to check for him, insist on being present, and find any violations of lease he wants to nitpick about. Pretty much anytime he likes.
that's interesting. I opened a new tab to read this forum, and in the background, the browser was making dozens of requests to various "ad" sites. I don't know if it was a poisoned existing ad on the page firing these background requests off, or if there is some sort of script injected or if this is what Dice does in the background for ad revenue. Using Ubuntu 13.10, Firefox 27.0.1. It did not occur on other forums.
I'm a satanic clam.
Resident != Occupant, and an unchallenged occupants consent is all that is required per this case and Georgia v Randolph
Occupant
An occupant is defined as somebody using the residence as an owner, or tenant.
Housekeepers (even if they have a key), babysitters, construction workers, gardeners, your friends, and your grandmother that is down visiting for the week, are neither and so do not have the legal authority to consent to a search of the residence.
NOT EXACTLY CORRECT....
See Georgia v. Randolph which states if another cohabitant rejects authorization, then you can't conduct a warrantless search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph)
What distinguishes this case here is that the police officers arrest Fernandez, on suspicion that he had beaten his girlfriend, and while being detained, later asks again his girlfriend whether they could search the premises. Whether or not you believe the police officer can simply detain a suspect, such that they can get consent is the problem...
I don't understand what is so Fxxxing difficult about obtaining a warrant. If you have actual probable cause then a judge gives you a warrant. I also don't understand this case. Someone at the door let them in so no warrant is needed.
No, anyone who consents to a search of their domicile without a warrant is a weak-willed simpleton idiot.
If I live somewhere it is my home. If I object that needs to be the end game.
Wrong. Owners should have some say over whether a place is searched, even if they don't live there. She was a co-owner of the place and she consented. This is a correct judgment.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The smell of cannabis is enough to enter, locked door or not. Any reason at all that an imaginative cop come come up with & in they can come in. Evidence? It can always be planted errr... found. All this worry over the 2nd & the 4th has been nullified.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Actually not. She was a co-owner of the home. I think if she was just a resident with no owning interest, it may have been a different ruling.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Result: The cops can now sit in a van waiting for the owner to go out for milk before they knock on the door and ask the remaining weak-willed/simpleton residents to search the house.
They could always do that, a single consent to search of a shared living space is legal as long as nobody else objects. So if you're away from the house for whatever reason, tough luck. The exception to this is narrowly carved out to be when another resident is present and objecting. So if he'd not been arrested, left the house and they came back an hour later her consent would still be enough, there is no "standing objection". In short, if your GF wants to invite the police over she can do so any time you're not around. Just like the postman and the pool boy next door ;)
The exception to that exception is if the police removed/tricked you away from the entrance to avoid a possible objection. However in this case from the actual ruling: "Petitioner does not contest the fact that the police had reasonable grounds for his removal or the existance of probable cause for his arrest. He was thus in the same position as an occupant absent for any other reason." And that position is that you need to be present and objecting when that other person consents.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And that applies to the Supreme court as well.
See Declaration of Independence for instructions the Founders wrote for the people in their recognition of the people rights and Duty.
Law enforcement officers that violate the law lose their legal position, fire themselves in doing so..
An intruder can be shot and killed and teh resident can claim they had good reason to believe the people were impersonating an officer(s) of the law.
In other news British Intelligence Advisor; Obama Born In Kenya In 1960; CIA DNA Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Scenario:
Police try to push into a party. The Resident of the place the party is being held says no. The police arrest that person for all to see and haul them away.
Then they come back and say they want to come in.
Can a random party goer let them in?
What if the room mate is intimidated because he/she just saw the other roomy get hauled away?
Couldn't this ruling be used as a sort of coercive ploy to get those intimidated by authority to give in?
I have seen these tactics used before even without this precedent.
You need to have common authority over a residence to grant consent to a search. This was established in Illinois v. Rodriguez however it did permit searches if it was reasonable for the police to believe the person granting consent had common authority over the residence.
Georgia v Randolph required the consent of all parties with common authority that are physically present to consent to a search for it to be valid.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
4 year olds don't have common authority over their parents property and it isn't reasonable for the police to believe that minors do. So no, a four year old can never grant consent to a search and any police searching done of a home with the consent of a 4 year old would be a slam dunk to get toss out.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Illinois v. Rodriguez established that it need to be reasonable for the police to believe the person granting consent has common authority over the home.
Georgia v. Randolph established that all people physically present with common authority must grant consent for a search, barring extenuating circumstances that would make it reasonable for police to believe the destruction of evidence or something of that nature would occur.
What this case established is that consent to search a home can be asked multiple times and if a person that denies consent is not present one of those times another party with common authority who grants consent permits the police to search.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Illinois v. Rodriguez requires the police to have a reasonable belief that the person granting consent has common authority. If they show up during a party and whoever answers the door grants consent for the to come in, that's not reasonable to conduct a search. It's reasonable to ask for the owner. If a child answers and grants consent that is not reasonable that the child owns the property and has common authority.
Georgia v. Randolph required that all people with common authority who are physically present in the home grant consent for the police to perform a search.
This case allows the police to swing and miss multiple times and just keep coming back until the person denying consent is gone.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Do they just have to get the last line at the checkout queue to agree to the search now? Or law offices? Or doctors offices?
There's one part of the decision with which I'm a bit uncomfortable. I don't like that the police can just keep coming back repeatedly asking for consent and if you're not present, despite having denied consent before, they can now search.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The general rule was established in 1974: "the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched. The ruling of the court established the 'co-occupant consent rule,' which was later explained by Illinois v. Rodriguez ... (1990) and distinguished by Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a *present* co-occupant" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Matlock ). This ruling clarifies that if the missing co-occupant is missing because he's in police custody, then the people still present in the building can still consent to the search.
Your cited definition is lacking, and actually highlights it by the some of the associated topics: "bona fide occupant, illegal occupancy, lawful occupant".
Merriam-Webster has a better one:
Ownership and even tenancy involve a higher level of formalization which would rise to the level of 'resident'... simple occupancy does not.
You do note a key differentiator... occasional vs regular occupancy.
While a visitor would be considered an occupant and not a resident (residency requiring either a pre-existing time spent, or a clear plan to (lease))... at what point does occupancy become residency (assuming we accept the premise that residency is required to be able to consent)?
You invite a girl back to your house for a night... she's an occupant.
She eventually moves in with you... she's a resident.
At what point in between did that status change and she inherited the legal authority to consent to a search of the resident?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
They say police may enter and search when they have the consent of an occupant. Because Fernandez was not there to object, “the police acted reasonably in relying on her [Fernandez's girlfriend’s] consent to search the premises,” Karlin wrote.
And by this logic, if noone is there to object they can search at will?
Would you say that a minor has common authority?
As mentioned above, in People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama, courts have allowed searches that were consented to by minors.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The house was full of illegal guns and drugs and he frequently brutally beat her. Pretty sure she knew exactly what she was doing.
Its a precedent that has gone on for over 200 years, dating back very nearly to the founding of the country.
I personally dont like Judicial Review either (and for the exact reason you pointed out) but legally, they cant be "wrong" in their interpretation of the constitution even if they are "wrong" in a common sense fashion.
If the woman said "there are illegal guns here", they wouldn't have needed a warrant anyway, since it was an ongoing crime.
I think that technically "All Y'all's" as a plural possessive would be correctly incorrect usage here.
Here is nolo's definition: https://www.nolo.com/dictionar...
IANAL, I'm just pedantic enough to be one.
What was the different solution? (I've also wrecked quite a few shirts in my time)
This ruling, like most court precedents, doesn't define the jurisdiction of any participants. I can walk into your house and invite the police to strip it bare. Or the police can ask your 5 year-old daughter for permission to do 'something grown-up'. Then there's the opportunity for thuggery and blackmail: If there are 6 people in the house, the police have 6 opportunities to get consent. When the first person says 'no', the police will harass the remaining people until they provide consent. Which is what happened in this case. The fact the person refusing a search is a criminal is irrelevant: Yes, the problem with protecting human rights is one also protects scoundrels. Legal protections cannot be conditional or "If you've got nothing to hide ...", for that rule leads to a "First they came for the communists ... " scenario.
So the police could have taken her to hospital and gotten a statement from the victim (and the attending physician). Then the police would have probable cause to detain the criminal and search the house. Also, the assault victim isn't forced into a court-room cross-examination
(Posting anonymously because I've already modded in this thread.)
I've heard from landlords here in CA that evictions are a true nightmare. You need to call out the cops to serve an eviction notice well before the actual eviction, and they need to serve each and every resident... not just the ones that are on the lease, and not just the ones that the landlord knows about. It can take months as new tenants are discovered, and served.
(I have no first hand knowledge. I have heard it from people who have experienced this.)
and its a mater of time before you will need permission to do simple things.., welcome to NWO
The US Supreme Court is a joke. What kind of decision is this?
How the fuck are they going to prove that whoever is in the house actually lives there! Are they going to ask the fucking dog if they can enter too!? My neighbor has no right to tell the cops they can enter my fucking house! Neither does the god damn movers! What the hell kind of destruction of illegal search and seizure is this!!!
Asshole. We are talking about the 4th amendment. You are too stupid to understand it. Go fuck yourself.
Yes. Isn't that the 28th amendment? "The right to have jack-booted thuds tear apart your residence?". There's no such thing as a right to be searched by the cops, you moron.
Holy shit you are one fucking stupid moron. Assume no crime has been commited and then go back and re-analyze. Your assumption that any person who refuses to allow the police to enter and search their home is a criminal is ludicrous, and cuts to the core of the kind of phenomenally under-educated ignorance of the subject of civics that is so prevelant on Slashdot today.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
..It has been obvious that 9/11 has been staged to revoke our rights. No surprise here.
If it was my home, I would've used the shotgun to keep the cops out!
Martial law within ten years... The population and technology curves are virtually identical and look like asymptotes... http://www.globalchange.umich.... Gird your loins Geeks,,, ;-D
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Holy Jesus fucking shit Christ Almighty, what a fucking dumb-ass fucking shit of a fucking moron you are. Jesus you fucking jackass, you really need to add some more fucking shitty words to your fucking vocabulary.