Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,247
207
106
Still requires consent. Don't room with people you don't trust and this shouldn't apply to you. I can see where this would set a lot of people off, but it's not completely unreasonable.

Now take a shot, kick the dog, and snort a line, hit me with your best flames.

However, this bit by Alito is pretty o_O
"Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."
He's basically saying that the existing system of warrants is fucked, so we're just gonna skirt it.

What follows it is a MUCH better rationale, and the one I would have used.
"He also said Rojas, who appeared to have been beaten when police first arrived, should have her own right to consent to a search. 'Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence,' Alito wrote for the court."
 
Last edited:

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
Still requires consent. Don't room with people you don't trust and this shouldn't apply to you. I can see where this would set a lot of people off, but it's not completely unreasonable.

Now take a shot, kick the dog, and snort a line, hit me with your best flames.

However, this bit by Alito is pretty o_O
"Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."
He's basically saying that the existing system of warrants is fucked, so we're just gonna skirt it.

He's saying F*** the Constitution, Cops can do whatever they want. This group of Supreme's has been the worst.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
In before the obligatory "Don't do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about" drep.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,201
12,029
126
www.anyf.ca
It's not like they don't already do it anyway, but sad to see that it's now officially considered ok. Means it's going to happen more. If there's one place people should have the right to feel safe, it should be their own homes. It's sad that even that is taken away. You don't really own your home, the government can take it away or take you away or kill you in it any time and there's nothing you can do. Kinda sad how that works, the people are powerless.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Don't complain. Here in the Netherlands they just passed a law where the police doesn't even require a search warrant anymore if they expect you might have an illegal alien in your house. The only thing they aren't allowed to do is break down walls to look behind them, which means that it's a pretty hollow law to begin with. They can bother you any time they want, but those really wanting to hide something can still do so.
 

Preyhunter

Golden Member
Nov 9, 1999
1,774
12
81
Fuck the Netherlands. Americans could give a shit about your laws and practices.

The main thread of concern is what's going on here in the US. Fuck a lot of law enforcement and fed govt and whoever else thinks they have the right to search my property without my say so (or a search warrant). They better have a damn good reason to search my shit, other than some NSA bullshit spy-evidence or they will get an ass full of brass. That's my right as an American citizen.
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
How does this ruling change from the previous caselaw that already said you could search if you obtained consent? The ruling, previously, stated that a resident could give you legal consent to search premises inside the home they had reasonable access to...like their bedroom, family room, kitchen, bathroom.

BUT..if there was a roomates room that he was not allowed to go into or was usually locked, police would need THAT person's consent as well in order to get in...or a search warrant if consent cannot be obtained.



"She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday's opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was "physically present" to object.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uVbw2VaA
"

Ahh...so it doesn't really change anything lol.
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
Fuck the Netherlands. Americans could give a shit about your laws and practices.

The main thread of concern is what's going on here in the US. Fuck a lot of law enforcement and fed govt and whoever else thinks they have the right to search my property without my say so (or a search warrant). They better have a damn good reason to search my shit, other than some NSA bullshit spy-evidence or they will get an ass full of brass. That's my right as an American citizen.

The Netherlands is actually interesting too since police powers are growing in a lot of countries. They always have some excuse, terrorism, drugs, illegal fish tank.
 

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,004
63
91
Fuck the Netherlands. Americans could give a shit about your laws and practices.

The main thread of concern is what's going on here in the US. Fuck a lot of law enforcement and fed govt and whoever else thinks they have the right to search my property without my say so (or a search warrant). They better have a damn good reason to search my shit, other than some NSA bullshit spy-evidence or they will get an ass full of brass. That's my right as an American citizen.

Depends what state you're in internet tough guy. Hopefully with a mouth like that you're in the great state of Texas.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
I'm not seeing a great expansion here...can someone help me out?

It sounds like Georgia v Randolph (2006) limited the police's ability to conduct a search without a warrant, if one of the parties present objected.

This new case says that if the objecting party is lawfully arrested or leaves, even if he objects to a search of the premise, the remaining occupant can provide consent and the search would be considered lawful.

But earlier case law fell along similar lines: if one occupant consents, and no one objects (or is present, which is apparently a key to refusing consent), then the police can lawfully search.
----

This quote from Alito's opinion is rather scary:
"A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," he said in Fernandez vs. California. "Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."

Apparently, we should throw out our 4th Amendment rights for the sake of convenience of the police. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
This merely provides a person with the right to have police assistance even if their abuser objects. Not really as terrible as people make it out to be.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
This quote from Alito's opinion is rather scary:
"A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," he said in Fernandez vs. California. "Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."

Apparently, we should throw out our 4th Amendment rights for the sake of convenience of the police. :rolleyes:

I didn't read it that way, I read it more like "even though the process is getting smoothing / quicker, there is still a burden associated with it no matter what". I don't think he was saying that because of that the search was reasonable, he was just saying that there is still a burden associated with it. Maybe I read it incorrectly though.

I don't like this ruling, because essentially it leaves the door open for the police to simply remove anyone who objects to the search from the area (arrest them, take them for questioning etc), and then have someone else provide consent. That can easily be abused.
 

SaurusX

Senior member
Nov 13, 2012
993
0
41
There absolutely should be a burden for police to obtain a search warrant. That's where Alito's logic is a huge fail.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
I didn't read it that way, I read it more like "even though the process is getting smoothing / quicker, there is still a burden associated with it no matter what". I don't think he was saying that because of that the search was reasonable, he was just saying that there is still a burden associated with it. Maybe I read it incorrectly though.

I haven't read the full opinion, so I don't know what qualifiers he put around his statement. I can see how his statement would appear reasonable under certain circumstances, but without any qualifiers to limit the scope, the blank-check nature of it is rather disturbing.
 

SaurusX

Senior member
Nov 13, 2012
993
0
41
It's not just "your" home. You share a residence why can't the other person allow people into their home.

Perhaps. The other side of the coin is that this ruling allows someone else to give away your Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
 

surfsatwerk

Lifer
Mar 6, 2008
10,110
5
81
Perhaps. The other side of the coin is that this ruling allows someone else to give away your Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.

Well if my wife has child sex workers locked up in the basement, I want to know about it.

Edit: that came out wrong
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
The "freedom" loving conservatives on the Supreme Court have struck again.

Everytime I hear a conservative caterwauling about "freedom", I have an overwhelming compulsion to thrust my arm down their throat and pull out their larynx.