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
And if the moon is not full, the stars Have to be visible. Good grief.
Good way for police to get shot
Oppression,loss of freedom.Now it seems like we are guilty until proven innocent.
That is a real piece of judgment,and lacking.in justice.
The police are never guilty of anything,even when beating an unarmed man that had no drugs in his possession.
Guilty until we prove our self innocent
this is BS
Thanks for the info Bob Wiro.
The owner or Tennant is always guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. Who gives them the right to enter my residence? No one, get a warrant before entry.
THESE JUDGES ARE CORRUPT, BROUGHT BY OBAMA AND THE ELITES, BLACKMAIL!