-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches
- Thread starter BostonVI
- Start date
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
At least I live alone. 
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
WTF!!!! So both parents can object but if little Tommy says hi Mr. Policeman come on it, its considered legit?
Actually, no. Read the decision.
And remember, Rojas (the consenting adult, who at the time of the search was the only person present in the apartment) had the power, if the police had (for instance) asked her to produce the boy friend's gun, to get it and hand it to them.
Cap
NES Member
My panties are still wound.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
TOM1960
Banned
So, if the parents object, the daughter objects, but her scumbag boyfriend who is in the process of being thrown out on his ass (by a very angry dad!) consents, the cops have the right to a complete search? Have we really sunk to this level?
Did you read the article?
The consensual search, of a home, requires ALL PRESENT "occupants" to consent. If your wife says "yes" and you say "no" it is no. This has changed nothing. I repeat nothing. It is not like a pissed off woman has never let the cops called to a domestic into the home after the boyfriend/husband has left...
I still think that absent an emergency, consent or not, they should need a warrant. That would prevent them from using forced coercion. It would make their illegal actions more obvious that way.
This
I didn't expect to see these three being against the new ruling
This means that if you have a friend, cousin, daughter, hooker over and they say yes to letting the cops come in, their word means shit, unless you own the house with said hooker or party.
I didn't expect to see these three being against the new ruling
GM-GUY
NES Member
Basically, if you aren't home, you have no right to exercise your 4th Amendment protections. Got it, PD comes to the house with me home - I say get a warrant. They come back (with no warrant) and my wife is home, and 'to make it so we don't have to trash the place' she lets them in. It's all good, even thought they were told to come back with a warrant, the know this and decided to roll the dice - winner.
They are not.
Why not?
Correct. Which is why consent or not, a warrant should be required. In fact, it is my opinion that it is required. I don't see where consent is even mentioned in the 4th.
Artifact
NES Member
All three officers heard the same word "consent" coming out of my mouth, they heard it loud and clear. Officers of LAW are more reliable witnesses than my lowly peasant ass.
Boghog1
NES Member
Exactly, we must vote for the R simply because of they can appoint judges to uphold our rights [/sarcasm]
TOM1960
Banned
Excuse me? Has happened numerous times here in MA. Wife tells cops hubby has guns, hubby gets screwed. Do a Google search and see for yourself. Happened on the North Shore a couple of years ago.
strangenh
NES Member
Unfortunately, as others in the thread have pointed out, legally this was kind of a no-brainer given prior 4th A. precedent. I'm honestly surprised by the content and composition of the dissent.
Call me old fashioned, but my daughter wouldn't be shacking up with her boyfriend under my roof, scumbag or otherwise.
I fully expect anyone refusing a search will be arrested for disturbing the peace or similar. You can't refuse to let them in from the backseat of their cruiser.
This decision, while certainly a logical extension of previous decisions, is still pure horseshit.
This decision, while certainly a logical extension of previous decisions, is still pure horseshit.
I didn't expect to see these three being against the new ruling
Based on their history and previous findings. These three are the 'liberal' core of the supreme court if you want to categorize them. I understand that all the justices are required to rule based on the Constitution but as we have seen in the past, politics have come into play.
Ginsburg who has spoken out about the US Constitution, sides with it on this case and is in dissent with the vote.
Kagen also has shown support for those who think our Constitution is flawed - also sides with the Constitution on this case and is in dissent with the vote.
Sotomayor is just a socialist. She is not objective and her actions are for the "greater good". She was with the Constitution on this case.
I am not turning this into a debate about the judges, I was just stating that I did not expect these three justices to be on the side of the Constitution in this case.
Based on their history and previous findings. These three are the 'liberal' core of the supreme court if you want to categorize them. I understand that all the justices are required to rule based on the Constitution but as we have seen in the past, politics have come into play.
Ginsburg who has spoken out about the US Constitution, sides with it on this case and is in dissent with the vote.
Kagen also has shown support for those who think our Constitution is flawed - also sides with the Constitution on this case and is in dissent with the vote.
Sotomayor is just a socialist. She is not objective and her actions are for the "greater good". She was with the Constitution on this case.
I am not turning this into a debate about the judges, I was just stating that I did not expect these three justices to be on the side of the Constitution in this case.
What if you have a "Come back with a warrant" mat?
What if you have a printed note that says something along the lines of "In my absence, as head of the household, I Ben Dover, refuse to let any officer of the law enter this dwelling without a warrant". Place a copy of this note on the inside of each door, taped to it in clear view.
Can a lawyer chime in on that?
