SoylentNews

US Supreme Court Increases Police Search Powers

posted by Dopefish on Friday February 28 2014, @06:00PM   
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?"

• Walking a Fine Line Walking a Fine Line (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

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+4
  Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Underrated=1, Total=4
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		5

• Re:Walking a Fine Line (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.

  Parent