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: 2, Informative) by n1 on Friday February 28 2014, @06:45PM
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
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
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
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
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.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by SMI on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:43AM
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.