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.
If I live somewhere it is my home. If I object that needs to be the end game. This ruling allows someone else to approve the search of my home. Clearly if any interested party who is a resident objects to the search then the search is not legitimate. Nobody else can give someone permission to search my domicile. Period. It is more and more the case that the "justice" system is really just a bunch of criminals. As far as I'm concerned the judge in this case should be put to death for treason.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
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
"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! --
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.
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. "
Using your logic, the person allowing the search is also incriminating themselves.
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
Because after all, if your door is locked, you *must* have something to hide.....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
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 just got a mental image of cold fjord's orgasm face when he pressed the submit button for this story. Ewww!
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."
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 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."
An occupant's right to waive their rights overrides any other occupant's right to uphold their rights.
....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.
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.)
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
The house was full of illegal guns and drugs and he frequently brutally beat her. Pretty sure she knew exactly what she was doing.
If the woman said "there are illegal guns here", they wouldn't have needed a warrant anyway, since it was an ongoing crime.
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!!!
..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!!!