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This discussion has been archived.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, Troll) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @09:44PM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:44PM (#8811)

    You don't get to make that determination, its above your pay grade.

    Alrighty then! Since you've decided that some random freedictionary.com is qualified to make that determination, let's go with that.

    search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause"

    In this case there was no search warrant and no one demonstrated probable cause. So, you've just put the argument to bed.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Friday February 28 2014, @09:56PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday February 28 2014, @09:56PM (#8821) Journal

    Again, you misunderstand.
    Once someone gives permission, probable cause is of no consequence.

    Probable cause is only involved in the case where no permission is needed, (such as being pulled over for drunk driving or something).

    As for the dictionary, what did you expect, a supreme court citation?
    Why would I expect you to accept that, when we are discussing a supreme court ruling, and you won't accept it.

    You are not a law unto yourself. You live in a society and that society as a whole makes the rules. How could any society possibly exist any other way.

    You too can aspire to sit on the Supreme Court, and right all the wrongs of the world.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @10:02PM

      by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:02PM (#8830)

      Again, you misunderstand.
      Once someone gives permission, probable cause is of no consequence.

      Oh, I understand completely. Your argument is a nice little circle. It should be OK if someone gives permission because once someone gives permission it is OK. Perfect internal consistency!

      we are discussing a supreme court ruling, and you won't accept it.

      Indeed, the SCOTUS is above criticism. I don't know what I was thinking.