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 Angry Jesus on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:22PM
I see no reason to insist that EVERY resident consent. Such a condition would be unworkable, and hands too much control to the criminal element.
You don't get to make that decision, it is above your pay grade. 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.
In 2006, the SCOTUS ruled the following in Georgia v Randolph:
See also United Stats v Matlock(1974) at 114-115:
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:28AM
From my (non-lawyer) reading of Matlock, it seems to be in agreement with the current case (Fernandez v. California).
So Georgia v. Randolph was over-ruled, and the situation now is that Fernandez v. California restores what was found in Matlock.
United Stats v Matlock
When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.
The entire ruling is HERE [findlaw.com]. See especially section IV Where it is clearly spelled out that only one party need consent.
Be beyond that, I have to ask where are you going with this?
You don't accept the current supreme court decision, so you show OLDER supreme court decisions as evidence? (And apparently miss the fact that one of those agrees with the current one).
I'm not sure it makes sense to appeal to an older ruling which was clearly over turned by the newer one.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:48AM
From my (non-lawyer) reading of Matlock, it seems to be in agreement with the current case (Fernandez v. California).
Again you misunderstand.
You were not talking about Fernandez v California - that's a case where the person denying access was no longer present. You made a claim that even people who are present should be over-ruled by their co-tenants. Fernandez has nothing to say about that point and Matlock never asked the guy because he wasn't present.