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: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday February 28 2014, @08:28PM
Read my comment here: http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=341&cid=874 1 [soylentnews.org]
What you need to understand is that in application, this case will become totally unhinged from its factual underpinnings, and become a general principal that allows cops to occupant shop for permission. There is a history of doing just that, specifically, the way Smith v. Maryland made sure some creeper did time, and in the ensuing decades, made sure that every innocent person in America is subject to surveillance.
If you think about that old saw: "It is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent to be punished" -- this is sort of a corollary to that: "it is better for one guilty man to go free, than to establish a principal that enslaves an entire population."
And really, everyone goes around blaming the law for letting the guilty get off. Why does nobody think to blame the lazy cops who can't be arsed to follow the law?