SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jiro on Friday February 28 2014, @06:42PM
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
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
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.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by calmond on Friday February 28 2014, @06:58PM
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
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
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
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!"