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 tlezer on Friday February 28 2014, @06:53PM
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