Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Supreme Court Expands Warantless Home Searches

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by RicInOR, Feb 26, 2014.

  1. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,902
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches - latimes.com

    See also: Fernandez v. California : SCOTUSblog <- brief


    "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."

    Occupant vs owner / renter - not sure if this is in the case or just the news story. The difference being a stupid friend might say yes, where as you have may trained your roommate to just say no.


    Where the person consenting is the owner / renter, then I agree with the decision - this is especially important for cases of domestic abuse.


    Some thoughts about the ruling

    Rory Little, Opinion analysis: The Court narrowly limits a precedent allowing co-occupant objections to warrantless consent searches, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 25, 2014, 5:43 PM), Opinion analysis: The Court narrowly limits a precedent allowing co-occupant objections to warrantless consent searches : SCOTUSblog

    Orin Kerr, Five thoughts on Fernandez v. California, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 26, 2014, 2:00 PM), Five thoughts on Fernandez v. California : SCOTUSblog
     
  2. GrpCapMandrake

    GrpCapMandrake Vancouver Active Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    237
    The case was interesting and very important to comprehend.

    I think it gives LEO's more flexibility than they should have in non-emergency situations. When they arrived and Mr. Fernandez was in an altercation where he was beating his girlfriend, there I completely agree that LEO's have the right to make entry as that constitutes an emergency. But that is not what happened in this case. They took him into custody on suspicion of robbery and then went back to the apartment and asked the girlfriend if they could search the place.

    As stated in the LA Times article, "How long would such an objection remain binding, Alito asked. A week? A month? A year? Ten years?"

    My opinion is that such a denial remains in force till LEO's get a warrant for the search in the given case. Justice Alito seems to disagree with me, as he pointed to the fact that once you are away from the residence your denial is no longer valid. Justice Alito's reasoning behind all of this just gets more and more disturbing.

    Justice Alito stated, &#8220;Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search, the magistrate who must review the warrant application, and the party willing to give consent.&#8221;

    Whereas I would put forth that, YES it is supposed to be a burden. LE is not supposed to have free reign to do as they will. We are a society governed by the rule of law, yes there will be criminals as we all know and have seen, but that is no reason to infringe upon the rights of citizenry. That is why it is called work!

    I personally think Justice Ginsburg's quote from the article was the best.

    &#8220;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,&#8221; Ginsburg asked. She answered her own question: &#8220;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.&#8221;

    This ruling from SCOTUS is a dangerous precedent to set. I feel nothing for the dirtbag at the center of the case, but rather for the greater erosion of another right as enumerated in the 4th amendment.

    No offense to LEO's who may be members of this site, but it is important to exercise your rights as LE does not always have your best interests in mind.

    I guess the greater moral from all of this is DON'T BEAT YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS!!! But what should you expect from a punk like Mr. Fernandez.
     
  3. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,559
    Sooner, rather than later SCOTUS members may find themselves on the wrong end of warrantless entries and searches, and even unlawful apprehension and incarceration, as well as legislators who get in the way by dissenting from "the agenda".


    Those of you monitoring this website for whatever government "alphabet agency", "remember that you are but mortal", and you are expendable, and when you've served your purpose...
     
  4. wichaka

    wichaka Wa State Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    797
    GrpCapMandrake, no harm no foul here. I agree with you.

    In reviewing many cases and incidents over the years, I always tell my guys...when in doubt, and to keep things from getting more complicated than they can be...get a search warrant.

    I disagree with only having one occupant give consent. Unless the consent is for their personal items only. Anything that is shared or community property should be off limits.
     
  5. RB87

    RB87 Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    228
    Yes, a good moral to live by, except this law will make it all the more easier for a significant other to lie, cheat and steal from their partner if they feel like it. There are far too many cases of false DV allegations.