SCOTUS: Police do Not need Warrant to Search Your Home

They simply arrest you for whatever reason and your absence leaves no one to object.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/supreme-court-rules-police-do-not-need-a-warrant-to-search-your-home/

Much to the surprise of the general public, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanded the ability of law enforcement to search without warrants.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court which ruled 6 to 3 that “when occupants of a residents disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present,” the Washington Post reported. “That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector,” the court added.

“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,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote.

What if I have a sign saying no trespassing ? Might as well give up we live in soviet US.

I don't particularly like the case that was used to reach this decision... but the precedent will stand and be applied widely.

PkrBum wrote:I don't particularly like the case that was used to reach this decision... but the precedent will stand and be applied widely.

Will make planting evidence so much easier...little child porn on your computer some heroin in your kitchen, gun in your closet, weed in your ash tray....oh yeah............ enemies of the state beware.

*****FART*****
IN ALL PROGRESSIVE's GENEERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCqsaUrw0c

No cite.   I have not heard of this case, and would rather read the actual case than have bizarre summaries which make no sense.  How about a name and date of the case?

2seaoat wrote:No cite.   I have not heard of this case, and would rather read the actual case than have bizarre summaries which make no sense.  How about a name and date of the case?

I did a brief search and found nothing. The closest thing I can find was a case that would have allowed police to search hotel rooms without a warrant, and the decision went the other way. So I think this whole thread is bogus.

Come on PK.....man up......why did you make this chit up and where did you find the rabbit hole for this one.....you have become a magician pulling total bs from thin air......but we have waited two days and you have done the Markle run on this one.....give us the fricking cite which matches your thread headline.

Apparently he didn't make this up:

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.

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.

California maintained in its argument at the court that police had enough evidence at that point to get a warrant. But they said one was unnecessary because Rojas had the authority to let them in, despite Fernandez's earlier objection.

The court agreed with that proposition Tuesday.

The case is Fernandez v. California, 12-7822.

That's very nice of you to spoon feed them... but don't get your hand too close to their cage.

That's very nice of you to spoon feed them... but don't get your hand too close to their cage.

I read cases, as most people should because the blogs rarely get close to a correct summary.  Here is the cite.   Thank you PPCA for providing a cite.

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

Ok, now that I have read parts of  the case, of course the thread headline is completely misleading and not accurate.   There is no requirement of a warrant where an occupant of a home gives consent for a search.  Here consent was given.  End of story.   However, the relevant issue the Supreme Court took up was the arrest of a cohabitant who did not consent to the search and was there an intentional act by the police to illegally search the residence?   The Supreme Court said Nope.....the arrest was reasonable and proper.

So this idea that somehow the Supreme Court has made some big change is ignorance on steroids.  For HUNDREDS of years a consent to a search has been controlling......nothing new or breakthrough here, but I will read the entire case today to see what trend each of the justices are taking in regard to the fourth amendment......their direction in the last five years has been encouraging.

Probable cause. And I say this with some misgiving, because I've had the PPD come to my house in search of a deserter. They appeared at both the front and back doors...I shut the back door. I had a dog that would have bitten them. The deserter was a Navy officer; he didn't want to go to Iraq, so he jumped ship in San Diego and returned to Pensacola. He wasn't at my house, his vehicle wasn't there, either, so they had no reason to believe he was there. I refused to allow them entry because 1) he wasn't there, and 2) the dog...who was barking furiously. They continued trying to gain entry, repeatedly asking me, my husband and my (at the time) teenage children to let them in. The answer was a consistent "no". I can just imagine what would have happened to the dog. Although this was several years ago, I believe that, had anyone (including my children) given them authorization to enter, they would have. Again, there was no reason whatsoever for them to enter, and it is within my rights not to allow them entry. Nothing has changed. Clearly this decision was about domestic violence. Clearly, also, in the incident I just described, there was no probable cause. I also have to mention that the SP on the scene was more than polite...but the police were not. My daughter called the person in question and he eventually appeared and was arrested. I could have asked the police to get off my property in the interim, but I didn't. I was protecting not only my dog and my home; I was also protecting the police.

People need to assert their rights.  Too many have died to not have our constitution mean something.  I have had to deal with outlandish behavior by police officers who are ill trained and simply not very knowledgeable.  Much like the lynch mob we saw on other threads where a citizen exercised his constitutional protections, it is the victim of police overreaching which is often characterized as being strident.........The common argument I hear is "if you didn't do anything wrong.....whats the harm in them ignoring the fourth amendment......the harm is that it gives unbridled power to government to abuse citizen rights.....like wrongfully stopping law abiding citizens driving in their neighborhood on a Saturday morning.....or busting into your home where you do not give your consent.......the typical excuse is for an officer to claim the suspect was running toward the house, and exigent circumstance exist which supercede the need for a warrant......people must stand up for their rights or they will lose the same.

LOLOLOL

2seaoat wrote:People need to assert their rights.  Too many have died to not have our constitution mean something.  I have had to deal with outlandish behavior by police officers who are ill trained and simply not very knowledgeable.  Much like the lynch mob we saw on other threads where a citizen exercised his constitutional protections, it is the victim of police overreaching which is often characterized as being strident.........The common argument I hear is "if you didn't do anything wrong.....whats the harm in them ignoring the fourth amendment......the harm is that it gives unbridled power to government to abuse citizen rights.....like wrongfully stopping law abiding citizens driving in their neighborhood on a Saturday morning.....or busting into your home where you do not give your consent.......the typical excuse is for an officer to claim the suspect was running toward the house, and exigent circumstance exist which supercede the need for a warrant......people must stand up for their rights or they will lose the same.

I would not take your advice and push myself into getting arrested. I have no doubt you have been arrested a multitude of times in your unbridled outrage at the police. As Tommy Ratchford said it is not smart.