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.
...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?
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"
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"
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.
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.
Better not even say that. Giving them the idea you might have something they could turn into a prison sentence is probably enough to interest them even more.
Here's how the ACLU says to handle the cops:
http://www.aclumontereycounty....
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. "
Ok, I have to ask, WTF is a "deodorant rock"???
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
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.
I think it's a fake rock you leave in a bowl to fragrence a room, but they look like crack rocks.
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
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.
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...
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"
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.
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.
They sell them by the bag at home depot. Every six months you put them in the sun for 12 hours.
Not sure how they work, but they helped keep the smell of my medicine garden down back when it was profitable enough to bother (before it was legal).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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
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.
I would revise that statement to the following: "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now? If the officer indicates you may not leave, ask "Am I under arrest?" if they say "no" then ask "May I leave now?" Answer all questions the same way until you are allowed to leave or they arrest you. If they arrest you, THEN you say: "Respectfully officer, I request my lawyer be present before I answer any of your question. " If they say you may leave, LEAVE! Above all, DON'T answer questions until your lawyer tells you to.
Further, if an officer asks to search or "look" though your stuff, you say "Respectfully officer, I do not consent to a search of anything. May I leave now?" (etc) NEVER consent to a search or answer ANY question be CLEAR and FIRM but RESPECTFUL when you respond and ALWAYS obey commands they give. Don't get in their way, just keep answering their questions by refusing to answer and not allowing any searches.
Answering police questions or allowing searches can NEVER help you but the CAN hurt you, even if you don't think you've done anything wrong. Remember the Police can lie to you and what they *say* they are investigating may not be true and you have no way to know. Best to just keep quite and not allow searches.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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,
If you haven't noticed lately, Congress is unwilling to legislate and prefers rather to delegate power to the Executive branch.
All I am getting out of this ruling is that I should never let police into my house for any reason.
That should have been your stance from the get go. Law enforcement only has the power that we give them. Make them do their job without taking shortcuts.
Officers swear an oath uphold the law. Ideally, they do that in an honest and moral manner. If you innocently invite an officer into your house but you forgot to wipe up the ganja flakes off your counter and the officer notices they are bound by their oath, depending on local law, to investigate.
Y'all is correct for a couple.
However, in this case, it's possessive, so should be y'all's.
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.
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?
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.
To save you the immense effort of a Google search, it's block of alum salt used as an alternative deodorant. You can also water-based mister deodorants with the same salts. From my own experience, they work pretty well unless you sweat hard enough to overcome them, at which point they become useless pretty quickly.
Largely used as an alternative to other aluminum-based stick deodorants by people who think that it's less likely to get into your brain and cause Alzheimer's (which is dubious on multiple counts). I used them for a while before settling on a different solution because I was sick of the way stick deodorant gets into the fabric of your shirts.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
... 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"
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
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.
I'm the AC above - I agree that Congress is unwilling to legislate and would rather pass the buck... hence why Congress hasn't declared war in a while. Every senator and representative wants to "keep their hands clean" of these sorts of things. I think though that if enough people started making noise about these infringements, it would force them to pay attention.
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.
No.
A landlord can't give consent for the police to search a space that you have rented for your exclusive use. They can enter without your consent in case of an emergency (fire, gas leak, water leak, etc), but a simple request by the police to search is not an emergency. Some easy to read sources.
Do note however, as a private actor, a landlord entering your unit legally (or even illegally, but then they would risk being subject to civil and/or criminal consequences for the entry), can observe that you've got a meth lab inside, go to the police and tell them this, and the police can probably easily get a warrant to search because they now have cause. Actually, even if the landlord took (i.e., stole) something of yours from your apartment (such as a gun used in a murder), they can turn it over to the police and it can be used as evidence against you (again, they would risk being subject to civil and/or criminal consequences for the theft). However, these actions on your landlord's part can not be done in coordination with the police. The Fourth Amendment only restricts law enforcement, not private actors.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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.
Every law limits someone's liberties, yes. The civil rights act PROHIBITS people from doing certain behaviors that would impact others based on their race. I would call a prohibition a curtailment of rights, absolutely.
Obviously its worth it in many cases, but any time a law says "you cannot", it is a restriction. Arguing that it "just" brings you under threat of restraint or violence from the state is a pretty weak argument, as well; technically it doesnt make it so that you CANT perform those actions, but it does assign consequences to them.
Posts like yours are a ray of hope in a bleak and ignorant landscape of slashdot posts.
Thanks for being informed and succinct.
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)
That depends on state laws. Commonly, a landlord is only allowed to enter a unit they rent to the tenant for their exclusive use for an appropriate reason at reasonable times with reasonable notice. Rules are likely to be different for situations like short term transient housing or boarders. Some jurisdictions may, or may not, let the tenant explicitly grant the landlord more access in the contract.
Remember, the landlord rented or leased the property to the tenant for the tenant's use - by doing so, the landlord has relinquished some control and use of the property in exchange for valuable consideration (the rent!). It's not unlike a dealer leasing a car to you for three years - as long as you make the payments and comply with other aspects of the contract, the dealer can't just decide one morning that he's going to use the car for a couple of days to haul steer manure from the nursery without your permission "because it's his car".
Appropriate reasons for entry include maintenance and repairs either initiated by the landlord or by the tenant. An annual inspection or showing the unit to prospective tenants or property buyers may be an appropriate reason. But the courts in jurisdictions I've lived in would be unlikely to consider weekly inspections of a residential property leased to the tenant for one year to be appropriate barring some extraordinary circumstances.
Reasonable times may be only during business hours or from 8AM to 6PM or something like that for non emergency cases - for true emergencies like a major water leak, any time of day or night is probably usually reasonable.
Reasonable notice varies, but for non emergencies, some jurisdictions require 24 hour written notice. Again, for true emergencies, no notice may be required beyond a knock on the door.
Check your local laws -- some regions are much more "tenant friendly" than others and the laws vary quite a bit across the US.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The only thing im encouraging is that people not post nonsense if they dont know what theyre talking about.
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
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!!!
Wrong. That might be the case in particular jurisdictions (LA and SF would not surprise me) but it certainly isn't that way in the whole state. All that's necessary is 30 days written notice naming the person(s) on the lease/rental agreement and however many John/Jane Does you think are necessary (it's recommended that number be generous). No need to get cops involved unless the tenant(s) refuse to vacate, but I suspect that's the case in every state.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.