Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Supreme Court allows disputed home searches without warrant

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
www.policeone.com...


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.


I was a bit confused about this. If one occupant says yes, and the other says no, could the police enter that home without a warrant?

The answer is yes. They don't need a warrant when 2 occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter. (as long as the one that said no is off scene)

Also, here's what Alito wrote.


Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.


After reading some of the officers comments in the PoliceOne link, it seems there's a "pendulum" in regards to SCOTUS rulings in regards to public vs LEO's. This decision may end up being reversed in say a decade or other time in the future.
edit on 25-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Wow... Did that stoopid judge just kind of invalidate the use for warrants, plain and simple?... wow...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
So, talk to your spouse or significant other about this, RIGHT NOW!
If that happened at an apartment, I would think then a parent, that owns the home, gets arrested, but has an 18 year old at home, the kid could say yes, and it would be legal too?

That's not right.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Here's another article, a bit longer than the PoliceOne article.

news.yahoo.com...


The court held on a 6-3 vote that police can search a home without a warrant, even if the suspect has objected, as long as he is no longer on the scene and a co-tenant gives consent


And here's the backstory to this case.


It made no difference that the suspect, Walter Fernandez, had earlier objected to the police entering the apartment before police took him outside, the court concluded.

The ruling was a loss for Fernandez, who had wanted evidence found during the search, including firearms and gang paraphernalia, to be suppressed as a violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the written consent form signed by the apartment co-tenant, Roxanne Rojas, made the search legitimate. If the court had not ruled for the government, lawful occupants would be prevented from inviting the police into their homes to conduct searches in similar situations, Alito said.



Writing on their behalf, Ginsburg said that by focusing on Rojas' consent, the court gave police an incentive to avoid asking a judge for a search warrant in similar situations.


This may have been a good choice in the backstory case, but what are the chances this could be abused in the future?



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Doesn't this imply the cops knock and ask for permission for entry first?

Correct if I'm wrong, but most of the issues discussed here regarding no-warrant entry are due to cops not knocking, not asking permission and simply entering with guns drawn, then basically opening fire when they encounter someone.

If it was as easy as just declining permission to enter, we wouldn't have half the issues we're seeing. The bigger issue is cops either not knocking/asking for permission to enter, or not taking no for an answer.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 





If that happened at an apartment, I would think then a parent, that owns the home, gets arrested, but has an 18 year old at home, the kid could say yes, and it would be legal too?


From what I understand, yes, it would be legal. If the owner is off the scene and objects to a search without a warrant, a co-tenant can say yes to a search without a warrant.
edit on 25-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Just thought of something. Given technology/NSA presently, cops can track your movement if they really want. They know when you're home or not. Well, if you're a renter, they just have to wait until you're at work, then ask your landlord or property manager for entry. Then legally they can turn your residence upside down.

Not good.

Booby-trapping your front door might be a good idea. Enter at your own risk.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

buni11687
reply to post by chiefsmom
 





If that happened at an apartment, I would think then a parent, that owns the home, gets arrested, but has an 18 year old at home, the kid could say yes, and it would be legal too?


From what I understand, yes, it would be legal. If the owner is off the scene and objects to a search without a warrant, a co-tenant can say yes to a search without a warrant.
edit on 25-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)


So what about a landlord that gives consent when the tenant hasn't? Or what about a wife that is unaware of anything and simply says okay because she doesn't realize it might be in her interest to say no. Or what about a child that is 18 living with parents and they wait for him to leave and ask the parents, the parents then regret the decision?

There is so many ways for this to be manipulated.

That doesn't even address the fact that police handbooks tell them how to pressure people into getting their way. So I see it as a method for manipulation where they might pressure someone who is not under suspicion. Lie or trick them into giving consent for another person.

Think about that for a second.

Now that it's a ruling perhaps they should ask an employee of wall street to open the doors for them while they rummage through the paper shredder room.



Oh wait, it's not aimed at those people…



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Wow.........

They say the UK is a police state........

You just got rid of warrents......WOW

What next get rid of the right to be tried by a Jury? The right to legal defence? The right to remain inocent until proven guilty?


Honnestly this aint a route you guys want to head down. Really you dont, Id kinda be getting my guns out if I was you, your founding fathers did give you that 2nd for a reason you know? I think your govement has not just crossed the line of tyranny but crapped on it, vomitted on it then doused it in petol and set it on fire.
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I can't say I'm surprised by this, but I am disappointed in the supreme court, I guarantee the police abuse this new power they have. I will be waiting for the uproar of the community and that's when the police will enforce the new power just to prove they can. it upsets me to think how fast our society is going down hill, and its sad that the people supposed to "protect" our "rights" are so quick to give them away....



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

crazyewok
Wow.........

They say the UK is a police state........

You just got rid of warrents......WOW

What next get rid of the right to be tried by a Jury? The right to legal defence? The right to remain inocent until proven guilty?


Honnestly this aint a route you guys want to head down. Really you dont, Id kinda be getting my guns out if I was you, your founding fathers did give you that 2nd for a reason you know? I think your govement has not just crossed the line of tyranny but crapped on it, vomitted on it then doused it in petol and set it on fire.
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


Trial by jury is effectively gone at this point. It's been replaced by hitting someone with 50 charges, each of which has a high penalty. If 2 or 3 stick you essentially face life in prison. Then the prosecutor gives you an out called a plea bargain where you circumvent the trial basically and just plead guilty to a judge for a "reduced" sentence.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This is why everyone in my family and all my friends are on the same page as far as a cop asking for entry...it's always NO! Under no circumstances are they to enter without a warrant. You may not even be aware of some mundane thing that you may have that breaks a law or whatever. Never talk to them when questioned and never allow entry without warrant...ever. So far here in Florida they've been respectful and have kept out and I have appreciated that in both cases the officers were courteous and professional.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


To answer you question, no, LEOs are not allowed to search your premises if your landlord or property manager consents. This is ONLY for tenants. Therefore, he or she would have to live in the occupied space. Even rented rooms wouldn't count under this exception. No worries.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Well, our supreme court has been making a habit of abdicating their responsibility to uphold the constitution. I am unsurprised by this, even if this decision is overturned, in the meantime this is near carte blanche gestapo access and essentially a revocation of the 4th amendment.

Though somewhat of a tangential point, I was wondering what constitutes a "gang" and found this:

What Is a Gang? Definitions

So, any exceptional legislation which targets gangs could easily be used against just about any association. For example, depending on a variety of political interpretations, I believe trade unions and book clubs could be made to fit at least partially within this description.
edit on 25-2-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 


No, the judge didn't just throw out the 4th amendment. This ruling involves an exception to the warrant rule, whereas after obtaining CONSENT, from a lawful tenant (not landlord, property manager, or even owner of the space if it is rented), a LEO may search a space. This is a well known exception that has been around for years. All this ruling does is say that if two adults have differing opinions on whether a search may occur, LEOs have the authority to search the property.
edit on 25-2-2014 by BeliefInReality because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


You're thinking of no knock warrant entries. A different animal altogether. Under this ruling a LEO must obtain consent before search, therefore no warrant is needed, as consent is an exception to warrant law.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 





Well, our supreme court has been making a habit of abdicating their responsibility to uphold the constitution. I am unsurprised by this, even if this decision is overturned, in the meantime this is near carte blanche gestapo access and essentially a revocation of the 4th amendment.


I don't see this as a direct revocation of the 4th Amendment, but instead see this as a 'loop-hole' to the 4th.

Essentially, this court seems to think that one person can sign away the 4th amendment rights of another.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Since an 18 year old is considered an adult, he/she could offer consent. Whether or not a LE agency allows 18 year olds to consent is a matter of internal policy.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

BeliefInReality
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 


No, the judge didn't just throw out the 4th amendment. This ruling involves an exception to the warrant rule, whereas after obtaining CONSENT, from a lawful tenant (not landlord, property manager, or even owner of the space if it is rented), a LEO may search a space. This is a well known exception that has been around for years. Al this ruling does is say that if two adults have differing opinions on whether a search may occur, LEOs have the authority to search the property.


While I paused several times while composing my comment for the reasons you mention, I ultimately concluded that my comment was apt.

They had already been denied access earlier by a primary resident. If they needed to search the premises they could have secured a warrant with a bare minimum of evidence, this is certainly a successful attempt to circumvent the 4th amendment.
edit on 25-2-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

buni11687
reply to post by greencmp
 





Well, our supreme court has been making a habit of abdicating their responsibility to uphold the constitution. I am unsurprised by this, even if this decision is overturned, in the meantime this is near carte blanche gestapo access and essentially a revocation of the 4th amendment.


I don't see this as a direct revocation of the 4th Amendment, but instead see this as a 'loop-hole' to the 4th.

Essentially, this court seems to think that one person can sign away the 4th amendment rights of another.


True and more delicately put than my, perhaps slightly hyperbolic, statement.





new topics




 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join