Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Friday February 28 2014, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the freedom-is-not-free dept.

GungnirSniper writes "By a six to three vote, the US Supreme Court has ruled police may enter a home if one occupant allows it even after another previously did not consent.

In the decision on Tuesday in Fernandez v. California, the Court determined since the suspect, Walter Fernandez, was removed from the home and arrested, his live-in girlfriend's consent to search was enough. The Court had addressed a similar case in 2006 in Georgia v. Randolph, but found that since the suspect was still in the home and against the search, it should have kept authorities from entering.

RT.com notes "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the minority by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, marking a gender divide among the Justices in the case wrote the dissenting opinion, calling the decision a blow to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits 'unreasonable searches and seizures.'"

Could this lead to police arresting people objecting to searches to remove the need for warrants?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by n1 on Friday February 28 2014, @06:10PM

    by n1 (993) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:10PM (#8652) Journal

    Of course I have not RTFA.

    I would like to know how an occupant is defined. Anyone in the property? Is it anyone beyond the threshold (child, contractor, guest), or do they have to be resident/leaseholder/(part)owner to consent to a search?

    • (Score: 1) by hubie on Friday February 28 2014, @06:12PM

      by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @06:12PM (#8654) Journal

      I haven't (yet) RTFA either, but I wonder whether there is any significance to the "gender divide" comment, or whether that was just thrown in as an aside.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @06:25PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:25PM (#8663)

        The gender divide comment is of interest because the case at hand involved a battered woman. Her husband/boyfriend did not want the house searched, so the police hauled him off and convinced her to let them in. She did and as a result the guy went to prison and she was 'rescued' from her abuser.

        Stereotypically you would expect the women on the court to side with a ruling that protects an abused woman. That they did not (a) shows that there is more complexity to the case and (b) stereotyping isn't very accurate.

        FWIW, there is a saying in the legal profession, "bad cases make bad law." I think this is one such case, the results in the specific case were a net good. But the precedent set here is going to be a very big net bad because it just opens the door (pun intended) for police abuse.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Gryle on Friday February 28 2014, @07:56PM

          by Gryle (2777) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:56PM (#8728)

          According to the NPR version of the story, the woman let the police enter the house and the suspect emerged after they had done so shouting the police didn't have the right to enter. The suspect was arrested and then the police later went back to the house and again got permission from the woman to enter. I think the nuance of her allowing them access prior to the arrest is what made the court vote the way it did.

          --
          Ignorance can be remedied. Stupid seems to be a permanent condition.
          • (Score: 1) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @09:17PM

            by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:17PM (#8787)

            That was the exact way it was described in TFA.

            Yes, I DID RTFA...what can I say, I'm new here! ;-)

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:32AM

              by davester666 (155) on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:32AM (#8963)

              Go back to /. We don't like your kind around here!

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday February 28 2014, @08:18PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:18PM (#8741) Journal

          I'm sure you'll go to +5 so I'll save my mod points. You are absolutely right, though the way I heard the saying was "bad facts make bad law."

          Case in point: Smith v. Maryland. This is the case upon which Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is predicated, and is the substance behind NSA shills saying that the programs are "legal." It was one of those bad facts/bad law cases -- Smith was a real creep. He robbed a woman and then stalked her. Everyone wanted to see him go to jail. The issue there was whether the police should have gotten a warrant to put a pen register on Smith's phone. They definitely could have gotten a warrant, but instead did not and just asked AT&T to do it. The Supreme Court dusted off the Third Party Doctrine (share info with a third party and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy), refused to exclude the evidence, and made sure Smith did his time.

          Three decades later, this is the basis for all of the NSA masspionage we see today. Note that Smith involved a specific person, undergoing a specific investigation, where probable cause to search him or his records certainly existed. That factual matrix however, has been utterly divorced from the Third Party Doctrine so that today, that case is seen as the legal basis for searching the general population, in the absence of any specific investigation, in circumstances in which there is no probable cause at all.

          Given the pattern Constitutional abuse engaged by our government entities, I fully expect that this case will be divorced from its particular ugly facts, and turned into a principal where police can go occupant shopping to avoid the warrant requirement.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday February 28 2014, @06:22PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:22PM (#8659) Journal

      We can discuss this case in particular if you'd like, because questions in court are always going to be a little subjective.

      The police arrived at the residence, a man was living with his common-law wife(he was the leaseholder). She had called the police, and consented to the search of the premises when the police arrived. The man refused the search, but having the woman's consent, they searched anyways, found their child who had severe bruising, and arrested the man on charges of child abuse(and yeah, the case they built on that evidence showed the father was the abuser).

      The question was whether the initial finding was an infringement on the man's rights, since they had no direct cause for the search, only the permission of the mother.

      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday February 28 2014, @06:29PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:29PM (#8668)

        There would be absolutely no down-side to requiring a warring in this specific situation. There was no immediate risk of harm to anyone. This sounds like an excuse to poke another hole in the fourth.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by hubie on Friday February 28 2014, @06:45PM

          by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @06:45PM (#8679) Journal

          Actually, from TFA:

          In 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department sought suspect Walter Fernandez, believed to have stabbed someone in a violent gang robbery. When police first arrived at the suspect's home, they heard yelling and screaming before Fernandez's live-in girlfriend Roxanne Rojas answered the door, appearing "freshly bruised and bloody," and with an infant in hand, according to argument recap by SCOTUSblog.

          It seems that there was reason to believe that there was immediate risk, which is what they took the guy away for. Then, since he wasn't present, and because the woman consented to the search, they searched the place and found evidence implicating him for a robbery (not child abuse).

      • (Score: 1) by emg on Friday February 28 2014, @06:37PM

        by emg (3464) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:37PM (#8670)

        So, uh, couldn't she have, you know, just gone inside and got the kid for them? If the man tried to stop her, the cops could have restrained him while she did so.

        As others have said, this ruling will result in cops arresting people merely to 'encourage the others'. It's as insane as most other recent Supreme Court rulings.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday February 28 2014, @06:59PM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @06:59PM (#8693) Journal

          I don't see any way around this issue other than to challenge her right to consent.

          Assuming, as a resident, she had the right to consent, I see no reason to insist that EVERY resident consent. Such a condition would be unworkable, and hands too much control to the criminal element. It would force innocent parties to participate in the continued crime (the robberies) or consent to continued abuse, or move out of a home that is at least nominally their own. Your Ne'er-do-well son could start cooking drugs out of your house and you couldn't even show the police the lab in his bedroom?

          No, there needs to be balance, and if the scale tips it should tip in the favor of the innocent.

          Betteridge would look at the question in the summary:

          Could this lead to police arresting people objecting to searches to remove the need for warrants?"

          and come to the conclusion that NO, in the long run, asking for permission to search, and hauling away anyone who says NO is not going to fly. Its easier to sit on the house and wait for the warrant.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @07:24PM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:24PM (#8707)

            No, there needs to be balance, and if the scale tips it should tip in the favor of the innocent.

            That's a statement that only has meaning in context. In this case the innocent person was bettered by the outcome (presumably). But as a general principle that attitude is a recipe for authoritarianism, on the level of "if you aren't hiding anything you have nothing to fear."

            Your Ne'er-do-well son could start cooking drugs out of your house and you couldn't even show the police the lab in his bedroom?

            Seems like if the son explicitly told the cops they could not enter then a warrant would suit that situation just fine.

            Its easier to sit on the house and wait for the warrant.

            For a legitimate search that is absolutely true. So why do the police need this privilege?

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday February 28 2014, @08:03PM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @08:03PM (#8730) Journal

              The constitution only offers protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
              This isn't an absolute right, and it never has been.

              Once someone gives permission, its no longer unreasonable.

              If all occupants agree that they do NOT consent a search, they would prevail. (Contrary to the question asked in the summary, refusing a search is not grounds for arrest).

              If all occupants refuse, and the Police still think they have enough to apply for a warrant, they can do so. But their burden is greater as it should be.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @08:21PM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:21PM (#8742)

                Once someone gives permission, its no longer unreasonable.

                Once someone denies permission, it is unreasonable.

                See how that works? Anyone can make a blanket subjective statement.

                It all comes down to the definition of "unreasonable" -- and part of that definition includes whether or not there is another way to get the same end result in legitimate situations with less opportunity for abuse in illegitimate situations.

                • (Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Friday February 28 2014, @08:51PM

                  by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @08:51PM (#8764) Journal

                  It all comes down to the definition of "unreasonable" -- and part of that definition includes whether or not there is another way to get the same end result

                  No, the legal definition of unreasonable search does emphatically NOT include finding some other way, and exhausting all other means. It has never meant this. You don't get to make that determination, its above your pay grade.

                  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unre asonable+search+and+seizure [thefreedictionary.com]

                  --
                  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @09:44PM

                    by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:44PM (#8811)

                    You don't get to make that determination, its above your pay grade.

                    Alrighty then! Since you've decided that some random freedictionary.com is qualified to make that determination, let's go with that.

                    search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause"

                    In this case there was no search warrant and no one demonstrated probable cause. So, you've just put the argument to bed.

                    • (Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Friday February 28 2014, @09:56PM

                      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @09:56PM (#8821) Journal

                      Again, you misunderstand.
                      Once someone gives permission, probable cause is of no consequence.

                      Probable cause is only involved in the case where no permission is needed, (such as being pulled over for drunk driving or something).

                      As for the dictionary, what did you expect, a supreme court citation?
                      Why would I expect you to accept that, when we are discussing a supreme court ruling, and you won't accept it.

                      You are not a law unto yourself. You live in a society and that society as a whole makes the rules. How could any society possibly exist any other way.

                      You too can aspire to sit on the Supreme Court, and right all the wrongs of the world.

                      --
                      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @10:02PM

                        by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:02PM (#8830)

                        Again, you misunderstand.
                        Once someone gives permission, probable cause is of no consequence.

                        Oh, I understand completely. Your argument is a nice little circle. It should be OK if someone gives permission because once someone gives permission it is OK. Perfect internal consistency!

                        we are discussing a supreme court ruling, and you won't accept it.

                        Indeed, the SCOTUS is above criticism. I don't know what I was thinking.

              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday February 28 2014, @08:28PM

                by hemocyanin (186) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:28PM (#8749) Journal

                Read my comment here: http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=341&cid=874 1 [soylentnews.org]

                What you need to understand is that in application, this case will become totally unhinged from its factual underpinnings, and become a general principal that allows cops to occupant shop for permission. There is a history of doing just that, specifically, the way Smith v. Maryland made sure some creeper did time, and in the ensuing decades, made sure that every innocent person in America is subject to surveillance.

                If you think about that old saw: "It is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent to be punished" -- this is sort of a corollary to that: "it is better for one guilty man to go free, than to establish a principal that enslaves an entire population."

                And really, everyone goes around blaming the law for letting the guilty get off. Why does nobody think to blame the lazy cops who can't be arsed to follow the law?

          • (Score: 1) by emg on Friday February 28 2014, @07:34PM

            by emg (3464) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:34PM (#8718)

            "I don't see any way around this issue other than to challenge her right to consent."

            How can she possibly consent to a search of someone else's stuff?

            If you rent out your basement, do you think the tenant should be able to consent to let the police search your house?

            • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 28 2014, @07:53PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @07:53PM (#8727) Homepage Journal

              Maybe I misunderstood something. Wasn't she his common law wife? She LIVED there. She had every right, and authority to authorize a search of her own home. What, exactly, is the difference between "live in girl friend" and "common law wife"? The difference of a year or so? They've been living together, and she had his baby - that seems good enough for me.

              --
              Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 28 2014, @08:05PM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @08:05PM (#8731) Journal

              She was cohabiting. It wasn't like she was a renter of a separate premises.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:22PM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:22PM (#9262)

            I see no reason to insist that EVERY resident consent. Such a condition would be unworkable, and hands too much control to the criminal element.

            You don't get to make that decision, it is above your pay grade. You are not a law unto yourself. You live in a society and that society as a whole makes the rules. How could any society possibly exist any other way.

            You too can aspire to sit on the Supreme Court, and right all the wrongs of the world.

            In 2006, the SCOTUS ruled the following in Georgia v Randolph:

            "[W]hen people living together disagree over
            the use of their common quarters ... a resolution must come
            through voluntary accommodation, not by appeals to
            authority." 547 U. S., at 113–114.

            See also United Stats v Matlock(1974) at 114-115:

            [T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant
            generally has a right or authority to prevail over the ex-
            press wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of
            the curtains or invitations to outsiders. ...
            [T]he cooperative occupant's invitation adds nothing to
            the government's side to counter the force of an objecting
            individual's claim to security against the government's
            intrusion into his dwelling place.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:28AM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:28AM (#9292) Journal

              From my (non-lawyer) reading of Matlock, it seems to be in agreement with the current case (Fernandez v. California).

              So Georgia v. Randolph was over-ruled, and the situation now is that Fernandez v. California restores what was found in Matlock.

              United Stats v Matlock
              When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.

              The entire ruling is HERE [findlaw.com]. See especially section IV Where it is clearly spelled out that only one party need consent.

              Be beyond that, I have to ask where are you going with this?

              You don't accept the current supreme court decision, so you show OLDER supreme court decisions as evidence? (And apparently miss the fact that one of those agrees with the current one).

              I'm not sure it makes sense to appeal to an older ruling which was clearly over turned by the newer one.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:48AM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:48AM (#9302)

                From my (non-lawyer) reading of Matlock, it seems to be in agreement with the current case (Fernandez v. California).

                Again you misunderstand.

                You were not talking about Fernandez v California - that's a case where the person denying access was no longer present. You made a claim that even people who are present should be over-ruled by their co-tenants. Fernandez has nothing to say about that point and Matlock never asked the guy because he wasn't present.

        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @09:22PM

          by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:22PM (#8793)

          No, she could NOT go inside to 'got the kid for them' because she answered the door with the kid in her arms!

          Stupid git....RTFA, n00b.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by n1 on Friday February 28 2014, @06:45PM

        by n1 (993) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:45PM (#8680) Journal

        I find it hard to argue with the logic in this case, and also explains the gender divide. It is what I had assumed based on the other reply to my comment. The divide is on the fear of an abusive male refusing entry to hide abuse of child or indeed partner.

        I would have assumed the cause for the search being a 911 call made from the property by an occupant. How this ruling will then be used is my concern at this point. Bored police getting consent from children or non-residents with no circumstances other than perhaps a 'smell' or 'noise'.

        • (Score: 1) by hatta on Friday February 28 2014, @07:06PM

          by hatta (879) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:06PM (#8696)

          The divide is on the fear of an abusive male refusing entry to hide abuse

          I don't see why anyone would consider this sufficient reason to commit a warrantless search. Any male, or female for that matter, could refuse entry to their home to hide abuse. If that justfies a warrantless search, then we could all be searched at any time.

          • (Score: 1) by n1 on Friday February 28 2014, @11:03PM

            by n1 (993) on Friday February 28 2014, @11:03PM (#8868) Journal

            You are correct. Certainly not agreeing with it. Just trying to understand the logic to the decision. As refusing entry could be seen as evidence as to why the search was warranted. "if you have nothing to hide..."

          • (Score: 2) by SMI on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:03AM

            by SMI (333) on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:03AM (#8897)

            Correct. There are reasons that warrants exist, and one of those reasons is to nullify issues like this when it goes to court.

            • (Score: 1) by deimtee on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:42AM

              by deimtee (3272) on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:42AM (#8928) Journal

              I think you slightly misunderstand the purpose of warrants. It is to provide oversight of those executing searches, not a free 'search anyone card'.
              Theoretically, the officers involved are supposed to provide sufficient justification for the search such that the search is not 'unreasonable'. They are then issued a warrant to carry it out.

              --
              No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
              • (Score: 2) by SMI on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:43AM

                by SMI (333) on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:43AM (#8940)

                Informative post, although I do understand that point and value the idea behind it.

                What I was eluding to is that if they had followed the established procedures for checks and balances (by getting a warrant, even if they didn't strictly have to), this case wouldn't have gone all the way to the supreme court. If it hadn't, such a precedent wouldn't have (yet) been established.

      • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 28 2014, @07:45PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @07:45PM (#8724) Homepage Journal

        Domestic disturbance. The person calling the cops has already implied consent to their entry. When they specifically ask for permission to enter, that person gives explicit consent. Doesn't matter to much whether the accused objects or not. Common law or not, the wife has the right and the authority to grant permission to enter, as well as to search the premises.

        Maybe the asshole should have spent more time keeping Momma happy, instead of abusing the child.

        --
        Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @09:44PM

          by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:44PM (#8812)

          While I agree with you in principal, that is not what happened here.

          There was no child abuse, and the cops were not called. They just showed up looking for suspects in a stabbing and robbery.

          FTA:

          In 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department sought suspect Walter Fernandez, believed to have stabbed someone in a violent gang robbery. When police first arrived at the suspect’s home, they heard yelling and screaming before Fernandez’s live-in girlfriend Roxanne Rojas answered the door, appearing “freshly bruised and bloody,†and with an infant in hand, according to argument recap by SCOTUSblog.

          Fernandez was spotted by police, and said, “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.†Yet police arrested him on charges of domestic violence. Later, once Fernandez was out of the home, police asked Rojas for permission to conduct a search, which yielded evidence implicating Fernandez in the robbery.

          The Court’s decision justified the police actions, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority’s position.

          “A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,†Alito wrote. He added that “denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence.â€...[...]... “Our opinion in Randolph took great pains to emphasize that its holding was limited to situations in which the objecting occupant is physically present,†he wrote. “We therefore refuse to extend Randolph to the very different situation in this case, where consent was provided by an abused woman well after her male partner had been removed from the apartment they shared.â€

          That's a little bit of a different situation, IMO.

          This case is exactly why we have trials and make attempts to make judicial systems fair, instead of just having laws and executioners.

          Sometimes things are not binary/black or white...there are a lot of grey areas in there you have to address.

          After hitting preview, I have to ask: "Where is proper unicode support, already?" WTF??!!?? Come on...

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Dutchster on Friday February 28 2014, @07:21PM

      by Dutchster (3331) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:21PM (#8704)

      The person has to have the apparent authority to consent to a search. Apparent authority != actual authority. So for instance the police come to a house with a plumbing truck in the driveway. The plumber answers the door and when asked if the police can search says "I'm just here to fix the toilet." He does not have the apparent authority to give consent to search the bedroom. On the other hand the cops show up and a middle aged woman answers the door and says "yes, please come in." If it later turns out that she no longer lives in the house well then that's too bad for the homeowner; he shouldn't let his guests answer the door and invite people in.

      There is no bright line in this analysis because it's going to come down to what a reasonable person would have believed at the time consent was given based on the totality of the circumstances.

      I'm a volunteer police officer and this sort of thing comes up from time to time. Usually it has to do with underaged drinking parties. We knock on the door and some drunk dude opens the door acting like he owns the place. We see clearly underaged individuals drinking on the premises (perhaps even the guy answering the door) and go from there. Invariably some lawyer will try to argue that the kid who answered the door didn't have the authority to let us in. That confuses the issue with the fact that all he did was open the door and allow anybody on the street to plainly see illegal activity going on inside.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by weeds on Friday February 28 2014, @06:27PM

    by weeds (611) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:27PM (#8666) Journal

    Officer: We would like to search these premises.
    Occupant 1: No
    Officer: You are a suspect in add reason here
    Occupant 1: No
    Officer: You are under arrest. Take him away boys!
    Officer to Occupant 2: We would like to search these premises.

    Repeat until an occupant allows the search.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @06:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @06:50PM (#8682)

      To get it better aligned with the article, you left out the part where Occupant 1 is holding a knife and appears to be covered in blood.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @10:05PM

        by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:05PM (#8834)

        The person answering the door was holding a baby, not a knife.(Rojas, the 'live-in girlfriend' of the suspect(Fernandez) the cops where looking for)

        The cops showed up at Fernandez's apartment, looking for a suspect(Fernandez) connected to a stabbing that occured during a robbery earlier that day. No one was holding a knife, not even Fernandez when the cops showed up.

        She(Rojas) was bloody and bruised, holding a baby when she answered the door.

        The word 'knife' never shows up in TFA, so where do you get this from anyway?

        "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts." *Sgt. Joe Friday*

      • (Score: 1) by fourtyfivehundred on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:57PM

        by fourtyfivehundred (4500) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:57PM (#86313)

        testing

    • (Score: 1) by calmond on Friday February 28 2014, @06:55PM

      by calmond (1826) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:55PM (#8687)

      last step: Profit!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Dutchster on Friday February 28 2014, @07:31PM

      by Dutchster (3331) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:31PM (#8715)

      And when you run out of occupants you still need to get a warrant.

      • (Score: 1) by citizenr on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:17AM

        by citizenr (2737) on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:17AM (#8935)

        No, you just happen to "find" substances in plain sight.

  • (Score: 1) by hatta on Friday February 28 2014, @06:28PM

    by hatta (879) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:28PM (#8667)

    Not only "could" it lead to police arresting people objecting to searches to remove the need for warrants, it will lead to police arresting people objecting to searches to remove the need for warrants.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Jiro on Friday February 28 2014, @06:42PM

    by Jiro (3176) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:42PM (#8676)

    Could this lead to police arresting people objecting to searches to remove the need for warrants?"

    As the decision mentions that the decision of the police to remove the person has to be "objectively reasonable", probably not. Furthermore, this only applies when one person wants the police to search and another doesn't.

    Ending articles with a Betteridge Law question is one of the more annoyign things about Slashdot. Please stop doing it here.

    • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday February 28 2014, @06:56PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:56PM (#8688)

      Ending articles with a Betteridge Law question is one of the more annoyign things about Slashdot. Please stop doing it here.

      Betteridge's Law is for headlines. Asking a question in a headline to attract mouse clicks is very different from asking a question in a summary to seed the discussion.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 28 2014, @08:31PM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:31PM (#8754) Journal

        Ending articles with a Betteridge Law question is one of the more annoying things about Slashdot. Please stop doing it here.

        Betteridge's Law is for headlines. Asking a question in a headline to attract mouse clicks is very different from asking a question in a summary to seed the discussion.

        Submitter here. That's how I've been looking at it. It isn't just to seed the discussion but to explain in question form why the article may be interesting to the SN community without too much editorializing. Asking a question doesn't prevent the discussion from from going in a completely different direction either.

        Soylent News is powered by your submissions, [soylentnews.org] so please submit stories to help the site grow.

    • (Score: 1) by calmond on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM

      by calmond (1826) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM (#8689)

      While I agree that rhetorical questions should be left to the comments, I think it is worth pointing out that Betteridge's Law states that when a headline asks a question, the answer is "No," whereas in this case, the rhetorical answer is yes. Minor point, but all the same...

      • (Score: 1) by Jiro on Friday February 28 2014, @07:32PM

        by Jiro (3176) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:32PM (#8716)

        Betteridge's Law says that the *actual* answer to the question is "no". But the question that Betteridge's Law refers to is usually trying to *imply* a "yes" (without stating it, since the "yes" is hard to support).

    • (Score: 1) by hatta on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM

      by hatta (879) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM (#8690)

      the decision mentions that the decision of the police to remove the person has to be "objectively reasonable",

      In whose subjective opinion must that decision be objectively reasonable? "Objectively reasonable" here are weasel words intended to mollify gullible people like you, and will not actually be applied in practice.

      Furthermore, this only applies when one person wants the police to search and another doesn't.

      Seeing your roommate or lover arrested, and the threat of your own arrest can be awfully convincing.

    • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:01PM

      by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:01PM (#9253)

      Ending articles with a Betteridge Law question is one of the more annoyign things about Slashdot. Please stop doing it here.

      I'm starting to detect a pattern here, maybe even a new meme.

      "<Insert personal pet peeve> is one of the problems with slashdot, don't do it here too!"

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tlezer on Friday February 28 2014, @06:53PM

    by tlezer (708) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:53PM (#8683)

    This ruling scares the bejeezus out of me. The justices pretty much outlined a process by which the police can secure a warrantless search. Simply wait for the person who does want the search to leave and ask someone else. Or better yet, manufacture a reason for them to leave, especially if you can intimidate remaining tenants.

    Remember...just http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/15/the-privilege-to -shut-up/ [popehat.com]shut up

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ngarrang on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM

    by ngarrang (896) on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM (#8691) Journal

    I read TFA. The police arrived and heard screaming and sounds. The woman answering the door showed visible signs of some sort of violence. The court seems to have recognized the live-in gf's right to allow to a search, deeming her some sort of resident with proper authority.

    They did not arrest the man because he did not allow a search, they arrested him for suspicion of domestic violence.

    Could this lead to police making up a charge? Sure. Corrupt pigs are corrupt and have been making up charges long before this ruling.

    • (Score: 1) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @10:13PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:13PM (#8840)

      Thank you for a bit of sanity here.

      It was a short article even...what is the objection to reading the article?

      I never understood that attitude/mentality if you were trying to have a meaningful discussion, instead of just another "Me too! Hey, look at ME!" crapfest.

      • (Score: 2) by SMI on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:12AM

        by SMI (333) on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:12AM (#8901)

        I find it quite amusing myself that almost no one will read TFA, but if someone copy/pastes a relevant section of it into the comments, almost everyone will read it.

    • (Score: 0) by mendax on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:25AM

      by mendax (2840) on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:25AM (#8906)
      In this decision, the SCOTUS did not weaken our rights to be free of unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures. They simply better defined the boundary between reasonable and warrantless.

      The police arrived and heard screaming and sounds. The woman answering the door showed visible signs of some sort of violence. The court seems to have recognized the live-in gf's right to allow to a search, deeming her some sort of resident with proper authority.

      The fact that they heard screaming and sounds would have been sufficient probable cause to enter the residence in my opinion. The police had ample information to suspect that there was a crime being committed. That's all they need for a warrantless entrance. Once they're in, everything is fair game.

      They did not arrest the man because he did not allow a search, they arrested him for suspicion of domestic violence.

      Absolutely. The police did not arrest the man just to get him out of the way so they could ask the remaining resident for permission to search.

      Could this lead to police making up a charge? Sure. Corrupt pigs are corrupt and have been making up charges long before this ruling.

      But they could also have simply staked out the residence and waited for the man to run an errand and then asked the woman for permission to search. The law has been very clear on this point for a long time.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:58AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:58AM (#9027)

        The fact that they heard screaming and sounds would have been sufficient probable cause to enter the residence in my opinion.

        That is reasonable, up and to the point at which they hauled the guy off. At that point, the screaming that happened before doesn't give them probable cause anymore because presumably he caused the screaming and with him gone any threat he posed to her safety is also gone.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Kromagv0 on Friday February 28 2014, @07:08PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday February 28 2014, @07:08PM (#8697) Homepage

    If we are going to try to be better then at least have editors provide a link to the actual Supreme Court ruling [supremecourt.gov]. Especially since the actual decisions are fairly easy to read and usually provide fairly detailed reasoning for the ruling.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by hubie on Friday February 28 2014, @07:26PM

      by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2014, @07:26PM (#8710) Journal

      Thank you very much. I've never read a ruling before and I find this quite interesting; certainly more interesting than the quick summary in TFA. (Nice typesetting too. I wonder if one could download the LaTeX style page for that?) :P

      • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 28 2014, @08:12PM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:12PM (#8735) Journal

        Thanks all for the feedback. Should we also warn when the links are to PDFs?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @10:25PM

          by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:25PM (#8844)

          Nah, don't bother.

          One, this day and age, everything but the kitchen sink has a .pdf reader built in, or plug-ins.

          Second, anyone who cares, already uses anything but Adobe Reader to view online .pdf's.

          And third, if they can't be bothered to pay attention to what they are clicking on, then they deserve worse than a .pdf inflicted on them.(remember goatse? I wish I could forget, but I learned!)

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by skullz on Friday February 28 2014, @09:08PM

        by skullz (2532) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:08PM (#8779)

        Nice typesetting too. I wonder if one could download the LaTeX style page for that?

        NEEEERRRD!

        But yeah, it does look pretty nice.

  • (Score: 2) by Khyber on Friday February 28 2014, @08:09PM

    by Khyber (54) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:09PM (#8734) Journal

    Nope. Supreme Court already ruled on arrests due to unlawful evidence this making it an unlawful arrest. You may kill an officer if you feel your arrest is invalid an can prove it.

    Kill the unlawful cops, you have a legal right to.

    --
    Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
    • (Score: 1) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @10:35PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:35PM (#8849)

      What unlawful arrest?

      There was no unlawful arrest in this case.

      Did you even bother reading the article, or just 'knee jerking' at a slanted summary?(see comment title;-)

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by etherscythe on Friday February 28 2014, @11:56PM

      by etherscythe (937) on Friday February 28 2014, @11:56PM (#8896) Journal

      Legally, maybe. Get back to me in the next life about how that works out for you.

      For myself, I'm gonna keep following my "keep a low profile" strategy. Cops have a tendency to act [rt.com] rather zealously [dailymail.co.uk] towards cop-killers, whether they feel morally justified or not. I just don't see the reciprocal violence thing working out in a practical and satisfying manner - at least on an individual level.

      --
      "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Friday February 28 2014, @08:30PM

    by bucc5062 (699) on Friday February 28 2014, @08:30PM (#8752)
    I read most of the court ruling (thank you poster for the link). Through out I felt the Assenting position was walking a very fine line in regards to excluding Randolph as a basis for the search. Like others, the ruling ha s the potential for law enforcement to abuse this situation in order to catch criminals. From a practical stand point, the guy was just bad news. He beat and robbed a guy, beat his live in girl friend and even beat a child. At some point he was going away for a good amount of time so here is my problem with the courts view; after hauling the guy away and arresting him, they went back, an hour later and asked to search the premises. One hour later. They had the man in custody, there was no time pressure or even what would appear to be undue effort to obtain a warrant, yet an hour later the go back to "investigate" for the robbery. How much more would it have taken to secure the witness, perform a line up, obtain a now valid warrant to search since they new the location of the home (having been there) and could link the guy with the robbery.

    This is where I disagree with the judges statement:

    And even where the police could establish probable cause, requiring a warrant despite the owner’s consent would needlessly inconvenience everyone involved—not only the officers and the magistrate but also the occupant of the premises, who would generally either be compelled or would feel a need to stay until the search was completed.

    The offices and magistrate need to be inconvenienced so that when they go to take action they have more justification then "gut feeling" to go by. This is about the only check we have on law enforcement. What the assenting judges has done is say to law enforcement, "don't worry guys, you don't have to work so hard to arrest and jail bad guys, even if they are not all bad". In cases of eminent flight risk, immediate personal danger, instant destruction of property there can be more a case made to warrant-less searches, but this case did not demonstrably show there was a need to rush the investigation.

    lately this court seems bent on giving the benefit more towards everything but the people. With some pretty important arguments coming up in the next year I am very concerned we, as a just society, may lose even more control on the Government and the checks and balances that protect us. (and we can't vote the SCOTUS out)

    --
    The more things change, the more they look the same
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SMI on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:18AM

      by SMI (333) on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:18AM (#8904)

      "...requiring a warrant despite the owner's consent..."

      That's interesting. Given that marriage is a legal term, I wonder how it might have gone differently if she hadn't been his (common law) wife.