the 4th has been trampled.. which one is next?

[98valk]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uRZHsxvB


The majority, 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.



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uRa7kr8X

[old2soon]

ALL of them followed by-the obuminater sez-obey me with out question.  RIDE SAFE.

[Robert]

WASHINGTON — Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uS9hDvm5

Not good but thank God we still can say no as long as everyone agrees.

[The emperor has no clothes]

ALL of them followed by-the obuminater sez-obey me with out question.  RIDE SAFE.

Wasnt Alito nominated by a republican and Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a democrat ?

[donaldcc]

ALL of them followed by-the obuminater sez-obey me with out question.   RIDE SAFE.

   I think ruling by the SCOTUS is a lousy one.

   You do realize that Obama is not a Supreme Court justice??  and that 2 of the 3 dissenting votes were from Justices appointed by Obama.

[donaldcc]

   The 3 dissenting Justices and who appointed them. 

   Ginsburg -- Clinton
   Sotomayor -- Obama
   Kagan -- Clinton

[Jess from VA]

Search with consent has always been the law.

What is not completely clear from the article is the right of an occupant to give consent.  If A and B share a dwelling, either may consent.  If C the UPS man (or any invitee) happens to be present in the dwelling with an owner or renter he would not be qualified to give consent, over an owner's objection.  But if you had a house sitter in the home alone, he could consent.

It would seem to be common enough (you've seen it on COPS) that husband/wife or BF/GF share a dwelling, and drunk male beats female, and cops arrive.  Female wants him arrested and out.  If drunk male refuses consent, is arrested and removed, and lawful dwelling female then consents to search, to enhance any case against abuser (which may very well be in her best interests), that is a good search (and should be a good search).

In custodial interrogation, once someone takes the 5th, the authorities are not supposed to keep trying to get him to talk (or change his previous election to take the 5th).   Similarly, the dissenters in this case would seem to be arguing that once one lawful occupant refused consent, no further attempt to obtain consent from any other lawful occupant should be allowed.  Since any lawful occupant can consent, why should the will of one be allowed to control the will of any other lawful occupant (are his rights more important than those of any other lawful occupant)?  Doesn't each lawful occupant deserve equal protection of the law?  I believe they do.

Moral of story, be careful who who let live with you.

Again, if I had a big family, I think this would be a good discussion at the dinner table.  If they come and take dad away, nobody will later consent to a search...... unless of course everyone wants dad gone.

Of course, what they didn't tell angry dependent wives in the military was, once dad is convicted and sentenced, they will be evicted from base housing and there may be no income, since his is often forfeited as part of his sentence.  Adultery is still punishable in the military, but using command to get your revenge, may get you more than you bargained for.  Hell hath no fury like..........

[czuch]

Chip,,,,,,,,Chip,,,,,,,Chip,,,,,,,Chip

[BF]

Chip,,,,,,,,Chip,,,,,,,Chip,,,,,,,Chip

This ^^^

[Jess from VA]

Really, this ruling is simply consistent with what has been going on in ordinary police procedure for many years (status quo).  It does not give the police any more intrusiveness into a private dwelling than they already had.  The dissenters were actually arguing for a change in rules to make it harder to obtain consent from a lawful occupant than heretofore existed.   A prophylactic protection of A, at the expense of B's rights. 

We all have complained that criminals have all the rights and victims none, and this ruling tends to protect the innocent over the offender, as well as keeping A and B on equal footing. 

[..]

Really, this ruling is simply consistent with what has been going on in ordinary police procedure for many years (status quo).  It does not give the police any more intrusiveness into a private dwelling than they already had.  The dissenters were actually arguing for a change in rules to make it harder to obtain consent from a lawful occupant than heretofore existed.   A prophylactic protection of A, at the expense of B's rights. 

We all have complained that criminals have all the rights and victims none, and this ruling tends to protect the innocent over the offender, as well as keeping A and B on equal footing. 

Always good to have a person with legal experience give a rational perspective.