Maybe if we say it louder.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Residents’ Rights To Just Say No.. But look at how close this vote was. It’s disgusting!
Police cannot search a home without a warrant if one occupant tells them to stay out, even if another invites them in, a fractured U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
New Chief Justice John Roberts, writing his first dissent, complained that the ruling will make it harder for police to investigate domestic abuse.
But, writing for the 5-3 majority, Justice David Souter said that a Georgia lawyer had a constitutional right to refuse the search of his home and that evidence of illegal drugs found there should be thrown out. The man’s estranged wife had consented to the search.
Souter said the decision was based on “widely shared social expectations” of when a person should enter another’s home.
“It is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant’s invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, ‘stay out,’ ” he wrote. “Without some very good reason, no sensible person would go inside under those conditions.”
No, no sensible person would.
___________________
Please read the details of the case in question. It’s in the article.
Police asked Scott Randolph, who is a lawyer, if they could search his home. He refused.
They then asked Janet Randolph’s permission. [She consented.]
What I have read is that the wife called the police saying the husband was a coke user, and invited them in when the police arrived. THEN the husband refused.
I’m not sure why you think this is disgusting. It seems good arguments could be made for both sides. And btw, Justice Roberts, is right. This rulling will make it harder for police with regards to domestic violence cases. I don’t know that he could take that into consideration or not and be in solid ground, but I think this vote was far from disgusting. I think it’s a difficult issue with co-tenants.
>>This rulling will make it harder for police with regards
>>to domestic violence cases.
As the good Justice Souter said, this is a red herring and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RESCUING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
It has EVERYTHING to do with answering the door, telling the police “no, you may not come into my house”, and having them come in anyway to nose around looking for something that may or may not be there.
The estranged wife did not EVEN LIVE AT THE HOUSE IN QUESTION, and for all we know, she brought the alleged cocaine with her to stick it to hubby. The police should never be allowed to enter someone’s home an conduct an illegal search on the basis of this kind of he said/ she said silly squabbling.
John Roberts dissent is small in scope and evident of his unworldliness. His position states that leverage should be given to the policeman’s seek for criminality, rather than the policeman’s seek for providing protection. When you seek criminality you must do so with suspicion– the state of mind is to offend (go on the offence). When you seek to provide protection you do with precaution and respect– the state of mind is to defend. Mr. Roberts is a cowboy just like his mentor, President Bush. They are out to hunt people down. Sure, they might capture and release if there is reason to (to *their* satisfaction), but they are under a pretense that their is guilt before innocence, which is a flagrant blow to our constitution where innocense is presumed FIRST. Again, the Bush team, the anti-Christ, is pushing U.S. back before the Enligtened Founding Fathers’ written law of God as written in the Constitution and The Declaration of Indepence.
If the woman had opened the door and was battered which was not the case, then then there was probable cause to arrest the man. The woman is also an adult. Adults must make decisions and not rely on the State to make it for them. If she felt threatened or did not approve of her husband’s behaviour then she has the power to LEAVE. There are services available to help her. BUT she has to make the decision. This all goes back to personal responsibility. In my personal life, my wife and I had trouble living in harmony. One day we got into a domestic dispute that ended in violence. After that day, I left. I live apart, seperate. No bitterness. Just realization. I still provide. I still love her. But I do not want to commune with her. Her consciousness is too low.
That woman wanted to change her husband’s habits. He did coke. She did possesion. She wanted to possess him in the image that SHE wanted. If she really loved herself she would leave that situation. You can’t love anyone until you love yourself. She’s like 99% of women who DEPEND on men to feel secure and loved. Baloney. The Supreme Court has honored the Constitution.
Roberts sides with Scalia and Thomas in favor of an illegal search, great! I guess we should be happy that Alito didn’t hear the case. I am sure he’ll join them when they decide the abortion cases making their way to the supreme court. I hope they end up in the dissenting side then as well. Hold on to your rights, there is no telling how much longer you will enjoy them with this bunch around.
>>That woman wanted to change her husband’s habits. He did coke.
Let’s not put the conviction before the trial, David. The estranged wife (who did NOT LIVE IN THE HOUSE), _said_ the husband did coke. And even though she DID NOT LIVE IN THE HOUSE, she was magically able to lead the police to right where the cocaine was. I’m giving 50:50 odds that she put it there herself, just to screw her estranged husband. If he’d been doing it all along, why would she pick just that time (when she wasn’t even a resident of the house) to call the cops?
In any case, the relevant fact is that it was HIS house and HIS right to grant or refuse entry, and he refused it.
I agree with the ruling as written. I also agree that the “domestic violence” opinion is a red herring.
The woman didn’t live in the home, so she had no right to allow the police to enter.
If I visit a neighbor’s house, I don’t open the doors to strangers and invite them in, that is essentially what she did.
If, on the other hand, the wife had lived in the residence and the couple disagreed whether or not the police could enter, I think that for safety’s sake the police should be allowed to enter. But, if the police entered for a domestic dispute case, I don’t think the police should have the right to search the house.
G
Give the police an inch and they will take a mile. Just say no … to warrentless searches.
It’s a good thing that the court said no, if they had said yes then… well we would probally seethe government send people to placesthey wantto search who would be invitedin, and then a minute latter a federal agent or police officer would follow w/o a warrent, ask the visitor who would say sure come in, and then search and search. Or maybe wait til no one is home send someone to break in, then show up ask and be invited in… or… What is happinging toour country? Will we ever become the country we have dreamed of: Freedom, equality, civil rights…. or will countinue on this road towards that which we say we are against?
>>Just say no … to warrentless searches.
Heh heh heh! Tell that to POTUS.
david, I’d have to agree that the dissent is leaning toward guilt over innocence, however you are mistaken about Bush being the Antichrist. Hillary is the Antichrist.
The most depressing part of this story is the mans reputation and business has been destroyed.Today because anyone can read the court records on the net if you are charged with a crime you are guilty in most peoples opinion.The record is there for anyone to see forever.It doesn’t matter if the charges are dropped and the D.A. is reprimanded by the Judge all people see are the charges.
“You don’t have to pray to little tin gods…”
i have nothing to hide, no drugs, no automatic weapons, no porn, nothing. i own all my music and movies outright, but all the same, i don’t want the police rooting through my house, because
1.) i know that i am innocent
2.) they probably won’t clean up after themselves
3.) they’ll scare my children
4.) they’ll embarass me in front of my neighbors
5.) that won’t find anything incriminating unless they plant it
i very much want the right to tell them that they can just go away, thank you very much
and if you don’t like the constitution/bill of rights, go live in china, you’ll like it there– they through liberals like me in jail for speaking their mind.
From the same guy who wrote that article on judge nominations:
the Court held, by a vote of 5-3, that although an occupant can give effective consent to a police search of premises that she shares with a co-occupant who later objects to the evidence obtained, and although the co-occupant would have had no basis for complaining if the consenting occupant had instead personally delivered the evidence to the police, the occupant’s consent is invalid, for Fourth Amendment purposes, if the co-occupant is physically present at the time and states his own objection to the search. If you find that sentence tough to navigate, good luck getting through Justice Souter’s majority opinion. Note also how Souter, after joining last term’s controversial ruling in the Kelo takings case (and after facing an ensuing effort to take his own home), falsely tries to position himself as a defender of the principle that “a man’s home is his castle.”
>>the Court held, by a vote of 5-3, that although an occupant
>>can give effective consent to a police search of premises
>>that she shares with a co-occupant
Hey, they’re lawyers. What do you expect? If they could speak Human, they would have gone into a profession that humans go into, rather than becoming lawyers
And note to Judge Souter: She does not “share [the house] with a co-occupant”. She had moved out, and was only returning to pick up her stuff (and plant a little blow in hubby’s bedroom to give him a felony rap and ruin his life). Guess Soutie wasn’t paying attention during the arguments.
AB CD,
Listen I could care less about the guy involved in this case. He sounds a lot shady to me, but after reading your post I have to ask, do you really like the government’s (local or otherwise) hand up your rear with out your consent? Don’t you think they should at least kiss you first before they violate?
You always seem so willing to let the G do anything they want. Either you are a provocateur, in which case I say “well done”, or you believe what you say.
Let me give you a scenario. Suppose you give a friend a place to stay for a few weeks – does that mean that said friend can now call the heat on you and then gives permission for the cops can bust in? That ok with you?
Suppose someone is just visiting. Because they visit, do they now have the right to give the police permission to search your house? Mr. Mustard is right, what if someone wants revenge and they plant the stuff? Or maybe the cops plant the stuff?
I guarantee you that if the cops bust down your door – regardless of how clean you think you are – they will find something to nail you on, even if they have to plant it themselves.
Do you care about your freedoms?
Shane, AB CD
From the appearance of both your posts, neither of you have read the ruling or even an article on the ruling.