http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/supreme-court-limits-police-searches.php

The US Supreme Court ruled today that a police search of a home, where one resident gives permission for the search but the other resident refuses to give consent is unconstitutional as to the resident who refused consent.

I think this is good.

Anyone disagree?

3/22/2006 4:16:59 PM

the ruling doesn't say what you think it says.

3/22/2006 4:20:23 PM

domestic disputes? there'd be tons of cases where the wife says come in and protect me and the husband says no you can't come in.

3/22/2006 4:20:24 PM

What do I think it says?

(As if you know what I think..... )

3/22/2006 4:27:01 PM

no but seriously, what about domestic disputes?

3/22/2006 4:32:32 PM

this is what you think it says

Quote :

"The US Supreme Court ruled today that a police search of a home, where one resident gives permission for the search but the other resident refuses to give consent is unconstitutional as to the resident who refused consent."

3/22/2006 4:33:47 PM

^^If the cops are right there at the door, why would they have to come in to protect her?
She could just simply step outside--it's not like the guy will forcibly stop her right in front of the cops....

I'm sure the Supreme Court thought of that, and I don't think any of the dissenting opinions in the ruling suggested that that's an issue.

3/22/2006 4:36:34 PM

people don't always fight at the door...

3/22/2006 4:38:16 PM

Wow, you're smarter than 5/8ths of the fucking Supreme Court

[Edited on March 22, 2006 at 4:40 PM. Reason : damn it]

3/22/2006 4:40:02 PM

so what's new?

3/22/2006 4:41:30 PM

Quote :

"A homeowner has the right to bar the police from entering without a warrant to look for evidence of a crime even if the spouse agrees to the search, the Supreme Court ruled today. In a 5-3 decision, the court upheld the privacy rights of a homeowner standing in the door and said those rights cannot be given away by another occupant of the dwelling."

Wait, first it says "spouse", then it says "another occupant".....does it matter?

Quote :

"A warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable," Souter said. "It would be a different matter," he said, "if police had come to protect Janet Randolph from physical abuse.""

You're right, it seems......although that's a fine line....

[Edited on March 22, 2006 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2006 4:46:59 PM

Quote :

"what about domestic disputes?"

Irrelevant. This decision has nothing to do with the cops ability to forcibly enter your home without consent.

If the cops are looking for a person, either a victim or suspected of a crime such as an abusive husband, they can do so for that purpose. The only restriction is, without the husband's consent or a search warrant or searching for a person or in the defense of life limb or property, they cannot use evidence found in the home at that time.

So, to finish it once and for all, a checklist:
#1 Reasonably suspect a crime against life, limb, or property is being committed inside the home
1a) saw a burgular break in
1b) a phone call from a victim
#2 suspect a criminal (convicted or not) is hiding inside
#3 have consent from all attendant parties
#4 Have a search warrant

Any ONE of the above, and the cops can walk right in and look around. Without #3 or #4 they cannot search inside the furniture, but anything "in plain sight" is game.

3/22/2006 6:22:27 PM

So, does this mean the agents who entered that woman's home under the guise of being Fox News reporters violated the law? Curious.

3/22/2006 6:25:02 PM

^ I think that would be fair to say. She gave consent to a Fox News reporter, not a cop.

Of course, however they got in, if he finds something juicy then he could run down to town-hall and get a warrant. I'm sure the DA is close friends with a judge willing to issue the warrant on the word of a "Anonymous Private Citizen". At this point, the cops can enter legally, sieze the evidence, and no-one can say anything (how do you prove it was the cop that phoned in the anonymous tip?)

3/22/2006 6:33:27 PM

I'm confused.
In the Kelo decision, Souter et al basically declared that the state owns everybody's property and can thus do with it as it pleases. If the gov't can take it away at will and give it to, say, Walmart- why can't they search it anytime they want for any reson?

If you refuse a search, they should just declare your home blighted, take it from you and then search it...just before they give it to WalMart.

3/22/2006 10:20:25 PM

They can give it to Wal-Mart, but they cannot look inside it while doing so. That is why Wal-Mart is encouraged to search all confiscated property before demolition or selling it back to the original owners at the real market price.

3/23/2006 12:11:35 AM