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: 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.