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.
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.
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.........
Same here. I thought that the cops operated under the same rules as vampires.
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.
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....
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.........
I like that analogy! The only quibble I have is that, as far as I know, vampires can't get a warrant.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
The fact that they opened the door should be enough permission to enter it? That's f-ing stupid.
What should concern you here is that the police simply removed the occupant that objected to the search and then obtained consent from the remaining occupant (who probably saw what happened to contestant #1 and didn't care to share the same fate).
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...
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.
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.
visiting relative or friend can allow the police to search your place
Depends on the circumstances and what you have said to the person.
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.
No. The owner of a lease/rental does not have the authority to authorize a search if it is currently leased and the owner is not a tenant unless specifically stated in the lease AND not barred by law. A contract can't override state law. By definition, "just somebody living there" would be a tenant, even if temporary or short term, such as a visiting relative or friend staying on your couch. The "somebody" can generally only authorize a search of common areas and where he is staying. This is why one roommate can authorize the search of a house or apartment but the police, but the police can search only the common areas and the authorizor's room and not any other roommate's room, regardless of whether the other are present or not. To search those rooms, the police would need a warrant. Of course, if they see your bong and weed sitting on your desk through the open door, that is cause to get a warrant because it is in plain sight. (This is why you should always keep your door closed).
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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."
That ship sailed a decade ago.
If you open the door, the cop will testilie that he heard a scream and waltz (push their way) right in.
Even if they find nobody to have screamed (the home is empty other then the door answerer), the search is legal.
So get a good locking security screen door, you can talk to people through.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As an American with some familiarity with history, it doesn't surprise me at all. Rulers and would-be rulers have always held the people in contempt, and you can see plenty of examples of it all around you there in Europe under the Fourth Reich.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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?
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
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.
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