It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Police can search a home if you are NOT at home OR if at least one occupant consents to the search, based on an LAPD case.

LA Times article

Takeaways from the LA Times article:


"A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," he said in Fernandez vs. California. "Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."



This video (News Channel 8, not sure what state/city):
www.youtube.com...

Takeaway from the video:
Ruled that an occupant may not object to a search if he/she is NOT at home.

This is some craziness. I think things are going to start getting ridiculous.
edit on 26-2-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/26/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WCmutant
 


First sentence of the article is:

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 in a Los Angeles case.


So someone still has to agree to let them search.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WCmutant
 


Wow! You really had me going there for a minute!


"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.
www.huffingtonpost.com...


I guess if you're alread under arrest, or being lawfully detained, they figure the police have "probable cause" to search your property.

Takeaway: Don't get arrested!


EDIT: I didn't read that right!


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.


So I guess you're right. They can search just because you're not home! YIKES! That's nuts!






edit on 26-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Elton
reply to post by WCmutant
 


First sentence of the article is:

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 in a Los Angeles case.


So someone still has to agree to let them search.


And they would have to have video proof of one of the people at the address inviting them in i assume?

Or else the Police could easily just claim one of the people there invited them in, whether they actually did or not.

Would a minor count as a person inviting them in?

A would imagine it would be easy to sweet talk or intimidate a kid into agreeing to let them in to search.

ETA; Things are getting pretty bizarre in the USA. It's like someone has decided to completely rip up the Constitution and ignore every right Americans have every had.

truly weird.

That 'if you're under arrest part'...a Woman was dragged to the ground and arrested the other day for jogging...another for jaywalking...it wouldn't take much imagination to arrest pretty much anyone, for anything at all and then this 'being arrested rule' would apply and your home could be searched without anyone being there.

Very sinister IMO.





edit on 26-2-2014 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

MysterX

Elton
reply to post by WCmutant
 


First sentence of the article is:

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 in a Los Angeles case.


So someone still has to agree to let them search.


And they would have to have video proof of one of the people at the address inviting them in i assume?

Or else the Police could easily just claim one of the people there invited them in, whether they actually did or not.

Would a minor count as a person inviting them in?

A would imagine it would be easy to sweet talk or intimidate a kid into agreeing to let them in to search.


I guess if someone invites the police in I don't really see a problem.

If there are 2 residents and one invites the police in and the other does not want them in, the Police are going to enter & no, I don't have a problem with that... Maybe pick better roomates?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Elton
 


If the other person is an adult, sure...but what about a kid?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Please add to the on-going discussion here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



In the future, please use search. Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join