Police searching home without warrant, with permission.

[one-shot-one]

i know,

that it is convoluted logic,but why do we only hear about these cases when they find something illeagle?
all these arguments would hold more water with me if they had searched and found nothing.

 

[TheEgg]

I certainly agree with the majority in this case.

And I am dis-heartened to read the Roberts dissent -- his reasoning seems very suspect -- not good for our new cheif justice.

 

[neoncowboy]

Look at this headline:

US Supreme Court Court limits cops' right to search

The cops have a *right* to search? I thought the *people* had a right to be FREE from unreasonable search/seizure! Police agencies don't have rights, PEOPLE have rights!

Unbelievable. 'cop's rights' to search. :banghead:

 

[spartacus2002]

BTW, I think that this illustrates something I believe pretty strongly: the "drug war" poses a far greater threat to our personal liberty and privacy than any terror-related measures enacted thus far.

As I've stated in earlier threads, I had an epiphany one day in law school while studying 4th Amendment search and seizure law: ALL the cases we studied where SCOTUS poked holes in or chipped away at 4th Amendment protections were War on Drugs cases.

The cure is truly worse than the disease.

BTW: after decades of work and billions of dollars, it's easier for kids to get marijuana than cigarettes or beer.

 

[MudPuppy]

And I am dis-heartened to read the Roberts dissent -- his reasoning seems very suspect -- not good for our new cheif justice.

I'm not sure why anyone is too surprised that Roberts is going to side with "the authorities" in cases like this--it was exactly why he was criticized by the Dems. He sides with big business and government.

Fortunately, he was overruled in this case. Hopefully he'll get it right on gun control and be more successful as well.

 

[TheEgg]

He sides with big business and government.

I was hoping the confirmation process would cause him to get knocked out of this mode -- so far, no dice.

 

[benEzra]

that it is convoluted logic,but why do we only hear about these cases when they find something illeagle?
all these arguments would hold more water with me if they had searched and found nothing.

Because those are the ones that go to court. Illegally obtained evidence isn't supposed to be admissible at trial, so that's where illegal searches get challenged, and if you can't afford a lawyer then the public defender will challenge it for you.

On the other hand, if someone performs an illegal search of your house, car, or person and doesn't find anything, they leave you alone. Most people don't have the money to pursue a civil-rights-violation lawsuit in that circumstance, and you won't have a court-appointed lawyer to do it for you, either. So unless you are (1) wealthy, (2) know an attorney that will handle the case pro bono, or (3) you find an attorney who thinks there is a big settlement at the end of the rainbow (not likely), then you just have to suck it up and go on, without redress.

That's why.

It is likely that the vast majority of illegal searches find nothing, but the only ones that have a realistic chance of being challenged in court are the ones that do find something illegal, for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[c_yeager]

The domestic violence arguement seems like a red herring. If a resident is making a report of a crime within the residence, that should provide PC to enter the home with or without the permission of both parties.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I like this ruling here, I think it's the right call, and it's consistent with the plain meaning of 4A.

The thing that cheeses me off is that it came from the "liberal" judges, with near unanimous opposition from the "conservative" judges.



In general, the SC has held that consent grants "reasonableness" to a search. IMO, a conflict of consent does not grant "reasonableness".

 

[k_dawg]

IOW:

If you are sleeping or away from the house, it is a legit search?

I do not agree with that consequence.