Supremes allow consent searches of homes, even IF others have refused.

[army judge]

The Supremes have just released a stunning decision.

Police officers can now enter and search a home without a warrant, even if only one occupant consents, where other occupants may have refused previous requests by police to search the premises. The Supreme Court decided Tuesday relative to an LAPD arrest.

In a 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, the ruling provides authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a search warrant, even when there is no emergency or set of exigent circumstances. It also allows occupants to allow the search, even if the occupants aren't owners or on the lease.

The majority decision, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.

"You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights," Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.

Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uT3425OF

 

[mightymoose]

I believe this only applies if the dissenter is not present at the time of the search.
You must be present to assert your rights.

 

[army judge]

I believe this only applies if the dissenter is not present at the time of the search.
You must be present to assert your rights.

I'm not sure what this will become, M2.
You're correct, as that was the result in this case.
Fernandez was hauled away, and later Rojas consented to the search.


The current set of Supremes are as divided and conflicted as the current Congress.
I suspect this court won't right itself for at least a decade, if not two or three.


In the meantime, their decisions will continue of this twisted, torturous path journey to The Land of the Illogical.



​