Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Supreme Court Allows Disputed Home Searches Without Warrant

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011

    Supreme Court Allows Disputed Home Searches Without Warrant

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-co...warrant-n38266

    "Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan were the three dissenting votes. They said the ruling makes it too easy for police to conduct searches without a warrant."

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Summary with citations:

    Fernandez v. California
    Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
    12-7822 Cal. Ct. App. Nov 13, 2013
    Tr.Aud. Feb 25, 2014 6-3 Alito OT 2013
    Disclosure: Kevin Russell, of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case.

    Holding: The Courtís decision in Georgia v. Randolph, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient to authorize police to search a premises if another occupant is present and objects to the search, does not apply when an occupant provides consent well after the objecting occupant has been removed from the premises.

    Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 25, 2014. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.
    Full opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-7822_he4l.pdf

    Quick take IMHO - if you say "Go get a warrant, copper" and they figure out how to 1) get you away from the property and 2) how to intimidate/cajole/convince the other person present at the property into saying "OK" then it's all good. Pay attention to #1.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    This is consistent w/prior rulings ...

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    This is consistent w/prior rulings ...
    Agree.

    Why SCOUS took this case is beyond me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Agree.

    Why SCOUS took this case is beyond me.
    Now the police can arrest anyone who says "no" until they get a "yes" from someone else in the house.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Person should have filed a notice of trespass .. this would not require his presence ...

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-co...warrant-n38266

    "Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan were the three dissenting votes. They said the ruling makes it too easy for police to conduct searches without a warrant."
    Never thought I'd agree with these three, but in this case, I most certainly do.

    Once again, the Supreme Court has made a decision which directly countermands the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    In their decision, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has VIOLATED my Constitutional rights.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Quick take IMHO - if you say "Go get a warrant, copper" and they figure out how to 1) get you away from the property and 2) how to intimidate/cajole/convince the other person present at the property into saying "OK" then it's all good. Pay attention to #1.

    stay safe.
    Answer: Close and lock the door, call 911, and do not ASK to report an harassment. REPORT ONE: "I am being harassed at my residence by officers who are breaking the law. I have refused to speak with them but they continue to harass me. They are acting agitated and violent, I fear for my life, and demand immediate protection."

    Meanwhile, have your significant other on the phone saying the SAME thing to your local FBI office, and requesting their immediate intervention and protection.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    SCOTUS should have taken woollard over this crap. the lower courts got it right.

    there are so many facts that make this case distinguishable from a routine split-consent case that physical presence is not the linchpin. the guy was the subject of a "fresh chase," had apparently just beat up his GF, and was therefore subject to arrest...which he admitted was the case.

    the cops didn't pinch him in order to do away with physical presence so that they could get consent from the GF...they had sufficient PC to obtain a warrant, too. he'd just robbed someone and ran into a dwelling. the 4A isn't a shelter for wrongdoers.

    for those of you law abiding citizens living with foolish consent-givers...you'd better lock up your stuff away from "common areas" or get everybody on the same page...because there's no difference if they wait for you to go to work and then ask your roommate for consent to check the common areas.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 02-26-2014 at 11:22 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Now the police can arrest anyone who says "no" until they get a "yes" from someone else in the house.
    would it be objectively reasonable to arrest those people?

    it's not objectively reasonable to keep arresting people who refuse consent until they get a "yes."

    read the decision before making such bold pronouncements.

    police routinely request consent when they already have PC, it speeds up the process.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 02-26-2014 at 11:24 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    would it be objectively reasonable to arrest those people?

    it's not objectively reasonable to keep arresting people who refuse consent until they get a "yes."

    read the decision before making such bold pronouncements.

    police routinely request consent when they already have PC, it speeds up the process.
    And arrests (there is not a reasonable test where arrests are concerned, only can a conviction be had) are tossed all the time via no charges being filed. The "ride" is separate from the "time." There is no easier thing to do in LE than to arrest anyone for anything, or nothing, it happens ALL THE TIME!!! And, in some states a "detention" is a arrest. The cop(s) need not remove the arrested citizen very far from the scene of the arrest. Only to a cruiser near by whose operator is participating in the "investigation."

    Arrests? Reasonableness? Phht.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    police routinely request consent when they already have PC, it speeds up the process.
    Probable cause is the warrant, per se'. It's used in situations like kidnapping, domestic violence, or fleeing felon, where waiting for a warrant would risk life or limb. It's been upheld by the courts for years.

    If I'm not mistaken, this latest ruling involves nothing more than suspicion, expanding arrest powers as a means of coercing people to forfeit their rights.

    That's so flagrantly wrong it's not even funny. It's also clear evidence our Supreme Court is off their Constitutional rocker.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Probable cause is the warrant, per se'. It's used in situations like kidnapping, domestic violence, or fleeing felon, where waiting for a warrant would risk life or limb. It's been upheld by the courts for years.

    If I'm not mistaken, this latest ruling involves nothing more than suspicion, expanding arrest powers as a means of coercing people to forfeit their rights.

    That's so flagrantly wrong it's not even funny. It's also clear evidence our Supreme Court is off their Constitutional rocker.
    Probable cause is probable cause. Warrants are warrants.

    What I meant was that cops routinely "ask" permission to do things they can already do. Take for instance a situation where it is the officer's discretion to arrest or issue a citation. If the officer wants a peek in wherever, he might condition the ticket on a grant of consent to search. If the person has nothing to hide and consents, he'll be on his way with the ticket. If he refuses, he'll get booked and his car/pockets will get inventoried, which is the more or less the same as a search.

    If there's PC on a separate or related violation, you can still withold consent and your lawyer will deal with teasing it all apart.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 03-03-2014 at 08:16 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Answer: Close and lock the door, call 911, and do not ASK to report an harassment. REPORT ONE: "I am being harassed at my residence by officers who are breaking the law. I have refused to speak with them but they continue to harass me. They are acting agitated and violent, I fear for my life, and demand immediate protection."

    Meanwhile, have your significant other on the phone saying the SAME thing to your local FBI office, and requesting their immediate intervention and protection.
    Better: File a notice of trespass. Call 911 and ask the PD to arrest the trespasser. Now they are the criminals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •