Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.

US Supreme Court Increases Police Search Powers

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This discussion has been archived.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.
US Supreme Court Increases Police Search Powers | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 68 comments | Search Discussion
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: 0) by mendax on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:25AM

    by mendax (2840) on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:25AM (#8906)
    In this decision, the SCOTUS did not weaken our rights to be free of unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures. They simply better defined the boundary between reasonable and warrantless.

    The police arrived and heard screaming and sounds. The woman answering the door showed visible signs of some sort of violence. The court seems to have recognized the live-in gf's right to allow to a search, deeming her some sort of resident with proper authority.

    The fact that they heard screaming and sounds would have been sufficient probable cause to enter the residence in my opinion. The police had ample information to suspect that there was a crime being committed. That's all they need for a warrantless entrance. Once they're in, everything is fair game.

    They did not arrest the man because he did not allow a search, they arrested him for suspicion of domestic violence.

    Absolutely. The police did not arrest the man just to get him out of the way so they could ask the remaining resident for permission to search.

    Could this lead to police making up a charge? Sure. Corrupt pigs are corrupt and have been making up charges long before this ruling.

    But they could also have simply staked out the residence and waited for the man to run an errand and then asked the woman for permission to search. The law has been very clear on this point for a long time.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.

  • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:58AM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:58AM (#9027)

    The fact that they heard screaming and sounds would have been sufficient probable cause to enter the residence in my opinion.

    That is reasonable, up and to the point at which they hauled the guy off. At that point, the screaming that happened before doesn't give them probable cause anymore because presumably he caused the screaming and with him gone any threat he posed to her safety is also gone.