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
This is what fascism looks like my friends. Molon Labe.
Not to add fuel to the fire but if two people jointly occupy a home either can give permission for entry. Sorry but that has always been the way as far as I know
In a 2006 ruling, the court determined that when police request permission to enter and residents disagree the objecting occupant’s wishes prevail… Miss that part?
Nothing is going to change unless you make it! Only you have the power to make yourself change things you want changed.
Angie Harsh according to the original AP article, “The [supreme] court ruled 5-3 in 2006 that when two occupants who disagree about letting the police in are present, the objecting occupant prevails.”
Thanks for the info, Truth & Action. Guess that’s not good enough for THIS administration. It’s THEIR way or .
Nice to know, I always thought that each had equal say. According to this article the objecting occupant is removed. I did not read this article was just commenting on what I believed to be the law.
WOW!!! The Supreme Court actually got it RIGHT for a change??????????? Surprise, surprise. “Justice” is SOOOOO about “protecting the criminals and thugs” and I’m just soooo happy the Supreme Court got it right on this one!!!
Wrong. Justice is to protect average citizens from being treated like thugs and criminals.
The martial law commences
I wonder how long it’ll be before they just stop asking AT ALL, and just kick in the door???? Sure wouldn’t surprise me to see it coming, and SOON.
come to my house without a warrant they wont like it
Here comes Hitler.
James———— he’s been here since his FIRST inauguration day. He’s just emboldened now because NOBODY is challenging him on it. HOW LONG till people are fed up enough to do something about it?
If they don’t have a warrant then y are they tryin so hard to get inside?
Bryan — it’s all about CONTROL and POWER and COMPLETE OBEDIENCE from the “masses”. This administration is so drunk on power they are unable and unwilling to stop themselves. They certainly don’t need warrants to read our emails, texts, banking statements, and monitor our location via drones and GPS. This is gonna get UGLY before it’s over, one way or another.