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: 2) by SMI on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:43AM
Informative post, although I do understand that point and value the idea behind it.
What I was eluding to is that if they had followed the established procedures for checks and balances (by getting a warrant, even if they didn't strictly have to), this case wouldn't have gone all the way to the supreme court. If it hadn't, such a precedent wouldn't have (yet) been established.