Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Government?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches - latimes.com

Fuck this government and our corrupt Supreme Court.

Well, on its face, it's not beyond the pale. Essentially, if the sole occupant of residence says "Yes, you can search" than police have the right to make a warrantless search. All the individual need do is say, "No. You need a warrant" and the police have to leave - so it's not like they are being given carte blanche to conduct home searches.

With that said ... I disagree with the holding because it essentially allows someone else to waive my constitutional protections. If I say "No. You need a warrant before entering", why should any other resident be able to essentially negate my constitutional protections against warrantless search if I happen to step out to get a pack of smokes.

The potential for abuse is HUGE. Husband and wife at home, police show up with probable cause to arrest husband (someone down the street gets robbed, says guy - matching husband's general description - ran into/behind/around the home). Husband says "You can't search" police arrest him take him away. As they do so, they say to wife "Well, you saw what happened there, we'd like to take a look around - do you mind?". That's just one scenario, folks here can probably think of lots more equally reasonable ones.

Once a resident says "no search", that should remain in effect until rescinded by THAT resident OR a warrant is obtained.

chip, chip, chip .... Hear that sound? It is the protection of the rights of the innocent slowly being removed in order to provide expeditious safety for the cowardly.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, on its face, it's not beyond the pale. Essentially, if the sole occupant of residence says "Yes, you can search" than police have the right to make a warrantless search. All the individual need do is say, "No. You need a warrant" and the police have to leave - so it's not like they are being given carte blanche to conduct home searches.

With that said ... I disagree with the holding because it essentially allows someone else to waive my constitutional protections. If I say "No. You need a warrant before entering", why should any other resident be able to essentially negate my constitutional protections against warrantless search if I happen to step out to get a pack of smokes.

The potential for abuse is HUGE. Husband and wife at home, police show up with probable cause to arrest husband (someone down the street gets robbed, says guy - matching husband's general description - ran into/behind/around the home). Husband says "You can't search" police arrest him take him away. As they do so, they say to wife "Well, you saw what happened there, we'd like to take a look around - do you mind?". That's just one scenario, folks here can probably think of lots more equally reasonable ones.

Once a resident says "no search", that should remain in effect until rescinded by THAT resident OR a warrant is obtained.

chip, chip, chip .... Hear that sound? It is the protection of the rights of the innocent slowly being removed in order to provide expeditious safety for the cowardly.

Wow, I am actually defending the gov't and you are knocking it. I know it's cold but I didn't think it's that cold!

I really don't see this is an unreasonable chipping away of protection (which amazes me to say the least).

Since in this case at least, they left and then came back, it was not like they ignored the statement not to search, but when they came back they re-visited the issue. Suppose they had not arrested the man, he cleaned everything up, and they came back, he certainly could have said go ahead. Since she was a resident there (that is pure assumption), she was acting in that same manner. That she didn't clean things up was stupidity but I don't think it was the police acting in an act of bad faith, or against constitutional protection.

Especially in the case of married couples, which this was not, you have great leeway in terms of what you can do for the other person. Allowing a search of common property would seem to be one of those things.