Supreme Court Rules that Cops DO NOT Need a Warrant to Search Your Home

More crap from the radical Roberts Court.

 

Roberts was the one who pushed through Obamacare, too

 

Home owners shouldn't be liable for booby traps then.

 

SCOTUSblog: "It was a busy, if not particularly momentous, day at the Supreme Court yesterday. "

huh.

what case does the OP refer to?

 

I think we need to consider the situation that generated this ruling. This was a case where a abused wife wanted to give consent for a search but the abuser didn't. While I agree this ruling could potentially lead to abuses but in situations like this where one party is trying to reach out for help from the police while the other is trying to prevent that there needs to be some flexibility on the part police.

 

Thread title and article seem to stretch the ruling really far.

The article says that if the police think someone is in danger they can ransack your home. That is not in the ruling at all.

Basically the ruling says that if a home is occupied by two people and the police are brought in and arrest one of the occupants, he doesn't have the right to overrule the second occupant regarding a search of a home.

This doesn't invalidate warrants. It seems like it would apply in pretty limited situations. Think of situations where two occupants are disagreeing over whether to let the police in. I honestly can't think of an example where that is occurring where the police should be prevented from entering the home.

 

The fact that domestic abuse is involved makes this a very troubling gray area. I saw the thread title and sighed but then realized that its a little dramatic. Could the procedures the police use to investigate a call like this avoid the need to search the house? Why was a search needed?

 

You mean like. . .where they arrest one and 'hint' to the second one that they will be arrest also if they don't allow the search . . .and that once arrested they will search anyway so they might as well allow it

Rocket River
. . .too much Law and Order

 

That's a stupid example.

This law doesn't create a situation where arresting both allows them to search your property, and the whole "hinting they will arrest you if you don't consent" is something that could happen now in your scenario.

This ruling doesn't change anything that you referenced in your post.

 

It still seems odd that simply an arrest would result in forfeiture of one's 4th amendment rights, given the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. IMO, consent to search should be unanimous.

 

Dislike the ruling, but isn't this old? Well, like a month old?

 

I get the argument, but at the same time I get the idea behind the ruling as well. I'm an anti-police state guy and I don't see this as an extreme ruling whatsoever.

The second party could still refuse to let you search the premises.

Basically we are saying that if a husband beats up his wife and she calls the police, does the husband have the right to overrule the wife granting police the ability to search the premises for the weapon?

This ruling would give abusive powers in an odd situation where the police potentially arrest someone without probably cause and their co-occupant has reason to want to hurt the suspect by granting access despite the suspect wishing to deny it. And then it could all get thrown out anyway if the arrest was done without merit.

I don't see it as a crazy ruling at all.

 

Generally, why are they needing/wanting to enter and search houses in domestic abuse cases?

 

I didn't see an actual case citation listed so did not look at the case, but the reasoning seems similar for allowing a search in the presence of probable cause. Especially, if an arrest was the result.

 

I'm confused by this ruling -- dems and repubs both hate this -- there has to be something we are missing... or is it as crazy as it seems?

 

This man is too rational. He actually read through the original article, conceived of scenarios the ruling was trying to negotiate, and then made a decision of his own critical thinking.

This is not CF D&D material. We need more kneejerk dramatics, lack of critical thinking, and posters who take every chance to push an emotional and non-rational political agenda (see OP thread title and the usual quick replies).

 

Gotcha, that makes sense.

 

The ruling is about consent. The thread title is misleading.

 

Clutchfans Political News Network (CPNN).

Accurate as always.