Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches

Posted by Unknown on from the arrest-everyone-until-someone-consents dept.

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.

28 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. Sure by realilskater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Especially if you dont have anything to hide. Imagine, if they find "something"...

    2. Re:Sure by xevioso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the woman, who appeared as though she had been recently beaten, opened the door and allowed the cops in, she was not in her right mind? The "right mind" action for her was to tell the cops to get lost, thus allowing the gang material and guns of her gangster boyfriend to remain in the house?

      Maybe sometimes the right thing to do is to actually talk to the cops. She allowed them in, they searched the place, found evidence to put the guy in prison for 14 years, and now a gangster is off the street and she doesn't have to worry about being abused by him anymore. What's wrong with that outcome?

      Nothing.

    3. Re:Sure by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's wrong with that outcome?

      Nothing.

      Nothing ... apart from the legal precedent it created as a side effect.

      (Which will be abused, you can bet on that)

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Sure by gmclapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pre-WWII Jews had nothing to hide.

      Pre-Red scare communist sympathizers had nothing to hide...

      It must be nice to know you don't have anything to hide that might soon become taboo...

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    5. Re:Sure by drkim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was no emergency situation at the time of the search, it was done after the fact. There was really no excuse for not getting a warrant for the search.

      There was no emergency, but they didn't "bust in claiming that it was an emergency."

      They knocked on the door and asked Rojas, who lived there, if they could enter. She said they could. So they did.
      They didn't force her - they asked her.

      If the guy had been home (he wasn't) and he had objected, they wouldn't have entered.

    6. Re:Sure by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Three people in the house. Police ask to search. Person 1 says no, gets arrested for silly charge and carted off. Police return and ask again. Person 2 says no, gets arrested on silly charge and carted off. Police return and ask person three while stroking handcuffs. What to say, what to say?

    7. Re:Sure by joaommp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What happens if the occupant that consents has no legal rights over that house? I mean, what if is only a visitor or has even forced himself inside the house?

      --
      Onda Technology Institute
    8. Re:Sure by skegg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point. And thankfully, litigation is completely free and fair.

      You don't need to spend thousands on a lawyer. Nor do you have to take time off work to meet with said lawyer and go to court.
      Plus, you're guaranteed to get an equitable judge; one who isn't on a first-name-basis with representatives of the police department.

      I wish I lived in your world ...

    9. Re:Sure by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      My thought - Some hungover dude I knew in college and dropped by to sleep one off on my couch can not grant cops the authority to enter and search my home.

      "Hi Mittens. My name is Officer Sausage-nose. Just 'meow' and sit there looking confused if it's OK if we come in and take a look around." "Meow?" "C'mon boys, the cat says we're fine."

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:Sure by Misch · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems to me that this could be interpreted to allow the following scenario: A police informant runs out of gas in front of your house. You let him in to use your phone so he can get a ride. The police then mysteriously show up wanting in. You tell them no but from behind you the informant yells "come right in."

      That's not what's going on in this case though.

      The /. summary is wrong.

      Using your case as an example, you kindly let the informant in. Later, police come to your door. The officer asks "may we search your place?" You say "no". Doesn't matter what the informant says. Your "no" still rules, as long as you are still there. That's still going to be the case.

      US v. Matlock, 1974 allowed the search as long as someone who could consent did consent. "Government must show, inter alia, not only that it reasonably appeared to the officers that the person had authority to consent, but also that the person had actual authority to permit the search..."

      Georgia v. Randolph, 2006, changed it so that if any occupant objected, then the search could not take place.

      Today's ruling, Fernandez v. California clarified and limited the exception from Georgia v. Randolph. If the person who objected to the search isn't there, and the person there is able to and does consent to a search, the search is valid.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    11. Re:Sure by davester666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The police only have to believe that the person has apparent authority to permit the search. No actual proof of authority, or even that you live there is required. They only have to "believe" you have the authority to ok it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Next, on "Lassie"... by QilessQi · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  3. So... by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Walter Fernandez, the person who said refused to allow the search, was arrested in connection with the street robbery that the police were investigating. The sounds of an argument led the police to the apartment. Roxanne Rojas, Fernandez's girlfriend answered the door and Fernandez told the police they couldn't search the place. About an hour after Fernandez was arrested, the police returned to the apartment and asked the other person who lived there, Fernandez's girlfriend, if they could search the apartment and she said yes.She could have hidden or moved anything incriminating between the time Fernandez was arrested and the time the police returned. She could have said no and that would have been the end of it because she wasn't a suspect in any crime.

      Really, the take away of this is "Don't piss off your girlfriend if you just robbed someone and don't want her to let the police search the apartment."

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:So... by brainboyz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have. Cop asked if he could search my truck during a traffic stop. I was arrested so the truck would be "unattended" thus could be towed and he could "inventory" it.

      "I would prefer you didn't."
      "Why?"
      "Strictly on principle. I don't agree with that and not a fan of people digging through my stuff."
      "Sir, I'm going to have you step out of the car and place your hands behind you back..."

    3. Re:So... by QuantumPion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh yeah? Just ask this guy. He was absolutely arrested for not consenting to a search by lying cops. And as shown in the video, the prosecutor states that if he wasn't lucky to have had a clear recording they would have no qualms about and would have gotten away with lying to convict him. The linked video is full of all sorts of blatant gestapo corruption on the part of the cops AND the court (at one point the judge called the sheriff to arrest him for not letting the prosecutor see exculpatory evidence, when sheriff arrived he simply told the judge he couldn't arrest him for that).

  4. Not a problem by Aeonym · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Frog is boiling.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...just keep chipping away at the rights, little by little.

    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.........
    1. Re:Frog is boiling.... by Delwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, this is about when someone didn't consent and was then arrested. The police came back and asked the remaining person who of course then consented (rather than be arrested). That should qualify as consent under duress if he had a good lawyer.

    2. Re:Frog is boiling.... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does matter, because it used to be that if police asked, and got denied, they had to go get a warrant. Now, they can play the mommy/daddy game.

      Ask one person, if they say no, go and ask the other. No need to be truthfull or anything. Police are allowed to lie, so all they have to do is go manufacture the consent of someone else, who may even just be a disgruntled roomate.

      I certainly hope such "permission" would not extend to individual areas, like personal bedrooms. As a landord who rented rooms to people. Common areas are one thing, but, personal space is personal space and something people often pay for.

      Frankly, at this point, I don't think police can be trusted to ever have a search without a warrant. We should require more warrants from them not less. This is the wrong direction.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Frog is boiling.... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is a false statement. The person who was arrested was arrested in connection with a street robbery, not for denying to the search. The person who allowed the search was not a suspect in any crime. The person who allowed the search was, however, the live-in girlfriend of the person arrested and was arguing with the person at the time the police arrived. She was pissed enough that when the police came back, she allowed the search even though she knew he didn't want it and she was able to allow the search because she lived at the residence.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:Frog is boiling.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The possiblity for abuse lies in the fact that whenever police are now faced with multiple residents and some are refusing a search and one or more are not, it's a very obvious tactic for the cops to simply arrest the ones refusing the search and then get permission to search from the remaining resident. All it takes is a wife, parents or child of 18 or more who live with you and will back down when threatened by cops.

      This guy sounded like a scumbag. But the potential for abuse is there.

    5. Re:Frog is boiling.... by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      The person who was arrested was arrested in connection with a street robbery, not for denying to the search.

      Everyone's guilty of something, and if the police can't pick something on the spot, you probably look like someone who was guilty of something. If the cops really want to arrest you, they'll find an excuse.

      Police are trained to use lies and intimidation to get their way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Re:I've to admit... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Same here. I thought that the cops operated under the same rules as vampires.

  7. Re:Complete Bullshit by Nukenbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. I see it now by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. "

    1. Re:I see it now by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first occupant was not arrested for "Obstruction" but in connection to a robber that had just occurred. Changing what actually occurred to match your views is not valid. If your scenario actually occurred the case would be thrown out based on false arrest as refusal of a search is not obstruction.

      So, if they had enough probably cause to arrest him, shouldn't they have had enough probably cause for a warrant? Perhaps either the cops were too lazy to do their jobs and get a search warrant, or they arrested him knowing they didn't really have enough probable cause, figuring they'd get it once they searched the house.

      What's perhaps worse is that the cops knew they needed to get a warrant once the guy refused, because this all happened before the court ruling. So to summarize: they were too lazy to get a warrant in the first place and searched anyway when they knew it was illegal to do so at that time.