• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme Court Allows Disputed Home Searches Without Warrant

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
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 Court’s 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/13pdf/12-7822_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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...disputed-home-searches-without-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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
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:

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
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. :rolleyes:
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
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.
 
Top