The Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without a warrant if they arrest the resident who refuses them access. In a 2006 ruling, the court determined that when police request permission to enter and residents disagree the objecting occupant’s wishes prevail. This raises the possibility that law enforcement may now have an incentive to arrest and remove residents who object to the police entering a home.
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.”
Source: Associated Press
Photo: Wonderlane on Flickr
There is already an exception for that written. But this is going way overboard and there will be more to come
WRONG
$#%&!@* the supreme court my home is my castle and i will protect it unless i violate there’s no reason too let them in
That’s where trip wire explosives come in handy
ILLEGALLY removing someone from their home is SANCTIONED? What were the grounds for the arrest? Why is refusing to permit a warrantless search NULL when ONE request for an attorney is sufficient?
This is what gives conservatism its bad fringe. The court simply approved the admittance of evidence from a consent search taken an hour after the arrest (on hot pursuit). Should police have gotten a warrant? Yes. Required? No.
can you say Heil Obama.
NEVER as long as there is a breath left in my body!
I don’t know as a previous LEO if one occupant says yes and the other no then there could be someone in danger including the possibility of children in danger. They should not be able to remove them from their home. And should question the other person to find if there is reason for a warrant.
The Supreme Court fails to follow the constitution. They should all be fired. Police have no rights to enter any home without a truthful warrant to do so
Out-flipping-rageous!