SCOTUS Police Statists rule in favor of the police state again

[Lucille]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/supreme-court-police-searches_n_4854440.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.

The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
[...]
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent that "Fernandez's objection to the search did not become null upon his arrest and removal from the scene."

The court ruled 5-3 in 2006 that when two occupants who disagree about letting the police in are present, the objecting occupant prevails.

 

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

Land of the "free"

 

[devil21]

Well that's convenient. Just arrest the dissenter for "resisting arrest" and voila, no more need for a warrant. I didn't read the official opinion but "occupant" is a broad word. Does that include someone who just happens to be at your home or only someone with a legal right to the property such as a roommate/spouse/etc. This ruling is ripe for abuse. Seems like while everyone is worried about the 2nd amendment, it's the 4th amendment that's really being destroyed lately.

 

[Lucille]

Funny how team red justices allegedly defend economic liberty, and team blue justices allegedly defend civil liberties, but somehow we've ended up with neither.

Supreme Court Broadens Police Power to Conduct Warrantless Home Searches
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/25/supreme-court-broadens-police-power-to-c

 

[Working Poor]

What if neither person wants to allow them to enter?

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Police don't need a search warrant if youre not at your house telling them they need a warrant

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.

The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.

"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.

Police found a shotgun, ammunition and a knife when they searched the Los Angeles apartment that Walter Fernandez shared with his girlfriend, Roxanne Rojas.

Fernandez told police they could not enter. But shortly after his arrest, officers returned to the apartment and persuaded Rojas to let them in.

Fernandez is serving a 14-year prison term on robbery and guns charges.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent that "Fernandez's objection to the search did not become null upon his arrest and removal from the scene."

The court ruled 5-3 in 2006 that when two occupants who disagree about letting the police in are present, the objecting occupant prevails.

Ginsburg, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also took issue with the notion that ruling for Fernandez would harm women who are victims of domestic violence.

Ginsburg said that police are justified in the immediate removal of the abuser from the premises. That, she said, is what happened in this case. But that shouldn't trump the need for a warrant to overcome Fernandez's objection to the search of his home.

When Rojas first answered the door for police, she was crying and holding her 2-month-old baby. She had a fresh bump on her nose, and blood on her hands and shirt. She said she had been in a fight.

At that point Fernandez appeared and ordered the police to get out, telling them he knew his constitutional rights. The police believed the couple had just been in a fight and removed Fernandez from the apartment in handcuffs. An officer noticed a tattoo on Fernandez' shaved head that matched the description of a robbery suspect. Fernandez soon was arrested.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-allows-disputed-home-search-155032856.html

 

[dillo]

the conservative justices are so fucking bad now adays

 

[Ronin Truth]

Wouldn't the surprise really be if they ruled the opposite?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ginsburg, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also took issue with the notion that ruling for Fernandez would harm women who are victims of domestic violence.

Ginsburg said that police are justified in the immediate removal of the abuser from the premises. That, she said, is what happened in this case. But that shouldn't trump the need for a warrant to overcome Fernandez's objection to the search of his home.

It was decision with a gender divide. And the women had the right answer...

 

[green73]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tists-rule-in-favor-of-the-police-state-again

 

[Brett85]

the conservative justices are so fucking bad now adays

It does seem like they're bad when it comes to civil liberties, but then again the liberal justices don't believe the 2nd amendment exists, so they're all bad.

 

[DamianTV]

It does seem like they're bad when it comes to civil liberties, but then again the liberal justices don't believe the 2nd amendment exists, so they're all bad.

Im half tempted to blame both the people that nominated them, and the people that vote for them. However, its the same illusion of choice as voting for a "bad president". We would do best to stop looking at the individuals that are a part of the system and look at the System itself, top to bottom, including the methods of achieving a Titled Position, and limitations of the Scope of Authority.

---

Effects of Statement: People hear what is not there. You have the Right to "Privacy" in your own home, where the words "in your home" are not part of the 4th Amendment. Same thing as the 2nd (addressed in 2nd Amendment subforum), where "you have the right to bear arms IF YOU ARE A COP OR GOVT SERVANT" where the IF statement is interpreted as being there when it most absolutely is not.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

What if neither person wants to allow them to enter?

Then the dog (the police's, that is) overrules them.

 

[Cissy]

The ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf

The situation:

“Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding.

When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas’ oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery.

The trial court denied petitioner’ motion to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted.”

Also:

“Our cases firmly establish that police officers may search jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). In Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006), we recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search. In this case, we consider whether Randolph applies if the objecting occupant is absent when another occupant consents.”

 

[Origanalist]

Ginsburg, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also took issue with the notion that ruling for Fernandez would harm women who are victims of domestic violence.

Ginsburg said that police are justified in the immediate removal of the abuser from the premises. That, she said, is what happened in this case. But that shouldn't trump the need for a warrant to overcome Fernandez's objection to the search of his home.

So I find myself in agreement with these three, down the rabbit hole with me.

Gee thanks Johnny boy /////////////

 

[Dr.3D]

So if the police want to search the home, they kidnap the person who objects and then since that person is not home, they can search the place. Have it got it right?

 

[Origanalist]

So if the police want to search the home, they kidnap the person who objects and then since that person is not home, they can search the place. Have it got it right?

Pretty handy little tool for the gubmint agents, yes?

 

[Lucille]

Yeah, warrants. How do those f'n work? It's not like there are very many judges in this country who would deny a cop a search warrant anyway, being as most of them are former prosecutors. I suppose cops just don't have time for that either.

SCOTUS: Screw the 4th Amendment, police can do whatever they want
http://rationalreview.news-digests.com/archives/150938

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said police should be required to honor Fernandez’s objection. The dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, added that it would not have hindered the police investigation because police already had probable cause to justify a search warrant to a judge.

She warned that the high court decision might send a dangerous message to law enforcement officials. “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind [that there was] ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

She said the decision amounted to a “drastic reduction” of Fourth Amendment protections.

“Although the police have probable cause and could obtain a warrant with dispatch, if they can gain the consent of someone other than the suspect, why should the law insist on the formality of a warrant,” Ginsburg asked. She answered her own question: “Because the Framers saw the neutral magistrate as an essential part of the criminal process shielding all of us, good or bad, saint or sinner, from unchecked police activity.”

If an NSA case makes it to the current SCOTUS, we're screwed.

 

[DFF]

Agents of the police state rule in favor of...the police state!

Who woulda thunk it???

 

[Dr.3D]

Pretty handy little tool for the gubmint agents, yes?

No doubt about it.

You're driving down the road and the cops decide they want to search your home, so they pull you over, take you downtown and while they are talking to you, they have their buddies search your house. This is of course possible because you are not home to object. What a deal, guess they don't need judges anymore.

Edit
Now that I think about it, they don't even need to take you downtown, all they need to do is detain you by the side of the road while their buddies do their dirty work.