Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Dopefish on Friday February 28 2014, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (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.