Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Friday February 28 2014, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the freedom-is-not-free dept.

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?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @09:17PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:17PM (#8787)

    That was the exact way it was described in TFA.

    Yes, I DID RTFA...what can I say, I'm new here! ;-)

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:32AM

    by davester666 (155) on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:32AM (#8963)

    Go back to /. We don't like your kind around here!