PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Craps On The 4th Amendment This Time



NJCardFan
06-30-2015, 11:24 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-police-in-home-searches-without-objector-present/2014/02/25/7bc1bb6a-9e5a-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

This country is done. The SCOTUS have effectively self repealed the 4th and 10th amendment this week. Soon the 1st and 2nd will be in their sights.

Rockntractor
06-30-2015, 11:48 PM
They can wait outside until a warrant is obtained, this ruling was entirely unnecessary. Time to require drug testing of the SCOTUS.

Dori
07-01-2015, 12:03 AM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the woman in the home allowed the police to come in, and the court ruled in her favor. (She had been beaten by the guy)

“Denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence,” Alito continued. “Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent.”

Rockntractor
07-01-2015, 12:10 AM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the woman in the home allowed the police to come in, and the court ruled in her favor. (She had been beaten by the guy)

“Denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence,” Alito continued. “Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent.”
confusing

Adam Wood
07-01-2015, 01:46 AM
This was like a year and a half ago. :confused:


This really isn't any sort of change or even controversial, really. They were in joint tenancy, he wasn't there, but one of the legal occupants was there and therefore legally gave consent to the search. Nothing new or earth-shattering about that at all.


SLW can legally give consent for the police to search the home where she and SR reside (or indeed any other space where they have joint tenancy: a hotel room, for example) if SR is not around. Why he's not around is not at issue, and never has been. Scenarios:


Police knock on the door while SR is ... whatever, out at a doctor's appointment or something ... and SLW says "sure, come on in and search if you want to." Completely and totally legal, will stand up all day in court and twice on Sunday.
Police knock on the door while SR is there, and he can say "screw you, get a warrant" even if SLW wants to consent to a search, and they have to go get a warrant because at least one of the legal occupants is at the scene and objects to the police's search.
Police knock on the door while SR is under arrest and being grilled back at the precinct, and SLW invites the police in to search: completely and totally legal, and always has been.



Now, there are some remedies to this from SR's point of view. He can immediately demand a lawyer upon arrest (or at least some time before the search takes place) and that lawyer can object on his behalf to a search, demanding that the police go get a warrant. At that moment, the police are usually going to be bound from searching until they get a warrant even if SLW consents, and they have to give adequate time to let the lawyer argue the warrant, etc. In theory, SR could post a sign prominently that as the resident of the property, he objects to any and all searches without a legally-executed warrant. How much water that sign holds will vary from one jurisdiction to another, and there's other considerations such as exigent circumstances. In the case at hand, exigent circumstances would likely override that because the wife (I guess; whoever the female was) had been observed as the apparent victim of the crime of battery against a person. And, of course, SR can counsel SLW in advance to reject any police requests for a search, but she has no legal obligation to heed his counsel on that matter.

SarasotaRepub
07-01-2015, 08:38 AM
Wait a minute...how did SLW and I get dragged into this???

Thanks oBAMA!!!! :biggrin-new:

noonwitch
07-01-2015, 09:12 AM
Do the police need a warrant to protect a person who is being beaten? Or someone who, when they see her, looks like she's just been beaten and needs medical help?

linda22003
07-01-2015, 09:52 AM
Very weird- this is from last term. Why wait a year and a half to get riled about it?

NJCardFan
07-01-2015, 10:19 AM
Do the police need a warrant to protect a person who is being beaten? Or someone who, when they see her, looks like she's just been beaten and needs medical help?

The ruling is broader than this particular case. Now all cops need to say to establish probably cause is to claim they saw someone injured or some other issue like a weapon.

NJCardFan
07-01-2015, 10:21 AM
Very weird- this is from last term. Why wait a year and a half to get riled about it?

It's a reminder of what this SCOTUS has been doing and it's been crapping on the Constitution.

linda22003
07-01-2015, 10:41 AM
What about the rulings you agree with? I'm sure there have been some. There are some rulings I like and some I do not, but I can't claim the ones I "like" are legitimate and the ones I "don't like" are not.

djones520
07-01-2015, 10:47 AM
It's a reminder of what this SCOTUS has been doing and it's been crapping on the Constitution.

In your opinion maybe.

FlaGator
07-01-2015, 11:11 AM
The ruling is broader than this particular case. Now all cops need to say to establish probably cause is to claim they saw someone injured or some other issue like a weapon.

Police have had this ability for years. They can get a search warrant for a car they stopped by stating they smell the order of marijuana or that their dog alerted them to something. How is that different than saying that the woman looked like she had been taken a beating?

Adam Wood
07-01-2015, 12:46 PM
The ruling is broader than this particular case. Now all cops need to say to establish probably cause is to claim they saw someone injured or some other issue like a weapon.That's not at issue in this case at all. It might have become an issue IF the woman had refused to consent to a search, but that's not what happened. She was the legal occupant in joint tenancy; if she gives consent to a search, then the police have a right to search. This is nothing new at all.

If your wife or brother or anyone not a minor who legally lives with you gives the police consent to search your premises when you aren't there to demand otherwise for whatever reason, then it's a perfectly legal search and that has always been the case.


No one has trampled the Fourth Amendment here. Nothing has changed.

RobJohnson
07-01-2015, 02:36 PM
Wait a minute...how did SLW and I get dragged into this???

Thanks oBAMA!!!! :biggrin-new:



http://th02.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2010/360/0/2/darth_vader_under_arrest_by_teleilias-d35ov2t.png

SurfaceDog
07-02-2015, 02:47 PM
The ruling is broader than this particular case. Now all cops need to say to establish probably cause is to claim they saw someone injured or some other issue like a weapon.

That's not the gist of this ruling - even though the police had followed Fernandez from the scene of a robbery, the Court didn't say that they had Probable Cause to search his residence. Even though Rojas answered the door crying, with a bump on her nose and blood on her hands and shirt, the Court didn't say that they had Probable Cause to search his residence.

They said that a legal co-tenant has the right to allow a search if the other tenant is not present even if the reason he isn't present is because he's under police custody. Probable cause doesn't enter into it.