The Supreme Court ruled today that police, without a
warrant, may legally enter and search a dwelling even over the vehement
protestations of an occupant, so long as a co-occupant grants them access.
That decision reverses a 2006 ruling, which held that the
refusal of even one occupant to allow a warrantless search was sufficient to
keep law enforcement from entering a home….. The case involved… search of a house
they believed harbored a robbery suspect. The suspect….. wouldn’t let them
inside the house. But the police argued that Fernandez’ girlfriend…..looked
sketchy enough to suggest a probable cause for domestic violence – an unrelated
charge. They went in and arrested Fernandez on the DV charge, removed him from
the home, and in the meantime sought and got on-site permission from Rojas to
search the home. That search produced evidence that tied Fernandez to the
robbery – the reason the police had shown up in the first place……. Alito argued
that Rojas’ permission carried equal weight (really, greater weight) with that
of Fernandez’ denial:…… Souter and the majority found, in 2006, that one
refusal was enough to force police to demonstrate probable cause to search a
home, Alito has invited the police to go fishing for the most gullible or
legally naive resident who might be found at the premises. All they need is a
“yes” - any “yes.”….. To Read More…..
No comments:
Post a Comment