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 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.