The Supreme Court Expands Police Authority In Home Searches

[yepthatsme]

Just read this article. I guess anyone in the home can consent to a warrantless search now. The SCOTUS says that any resident of the home can consent to a search. I'm just wondering how will the police know if it is a resident consenting or just a visitor?


Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches - latimes.com


My dog better never give his consent!

 

[Bunnykid68]

Once again the Republican appointed judges vote against our rights as usual

 

[yepthatsme]

I guess if there is one resident refusing to give consent and another giving consent, the police will just assume they now have legal consent.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This one makes me uneasy.

In the earlier case cited, two residents gave differing consent regarding the entry/search and the court deferred to the not entry/search.
In this case, one resident refused entry/search and they didn't but they arrested the guy. Then they came back and the only resident (I gather) gave permission. If it were a case where one of the parents is at work and the other is home with the kids, let's say...and the police show up and the wife gave permission to a entry/search without consulting the husband, I wouldn't have a problem with that ruling. (I might have a problem with my wife not standing up but that's not their fault). But to get refused once, then remove the obstacle, and then go ask again...that smells.

 

[rambone]

Expand police power:
John Roberts Jr. (R)
Antonin Scalia (R)
Clarence Thomas (R)
Anthony Kennedy (R)
Samuel Alito (R)
Stephen Breyer (D)

Get a warrant:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D)
Sonia Sotomayor (D)
Elena Kagan (D)

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Expand police power:
John Roberts Jr. (R)
Antonin Scalia (R)
Clarence Thomas (R)
Anthony Kennedy (R)
Samuel Alito (R)
Stephen Breyer (D)

Get a warrant:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D)
Sonia Sotomayor (D)
Elena Kagan (D)

Strange bedfellows. I just wish we could collect the full set of Constitutionals on the Council of Nine. Scalia only likes the Bill of Rights when it suits him, Sotomayor only likes the Bill of Rights when it suits her, Breyer hates the Bill of Rights most of the time, and I'm still shell-shocked that Elena Kagan made it onto the highest bench in the land.

Regardless, despite how stupid and un-Constitutional this latest ruling, it won't affect my household one bit. Coach your family on proper responses to police inquiries, especially in the absence of a warrant.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Expand police power:
John Roberts Jr. (R)
Antonin Scalia (R)
Clarence Thomas (R)
Anthony Kennedy (R)
Samuel Alito (R)
Stephen Breyer (D)

Get a warrant:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D)
Sonia Sotomayor (D)
Elena Kagan (D)

Every 4th Amendment case ends with more D's protecting it moreso than the R's, 2nd Amendment just the opposite

 

[88GT]

Regardless, despite how stupid and un-Constitutional this latest ruling, it won't affect my household one bit. Coach your family on proper responses to police inquiries, especially in the absence of a warrant.

I wonder how this'll play out when the consent-giver has no interest in the property. Has anybody read the ruling in its entirety yet? Or a synopsis of it that addresses whether there is a standard that has to be met to give consent? Does my visiting mom have legal authority to give consent? (Not that she would...I hope. Need to re-visit that conversation.) Assumptively, the consent-giver would have be 18 or older. But is that it?


This is an interesting side bar to the argument that the rulings by SCOTUS creating case law are sufficient in themselves to justify the existence of that bit of case law.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Expands? Matlock was from the early '70s if I remember Crim Pro I correctly.

Joejuh v. Randolph last year involved a a co-resident who was present, this dude was gone.

How is this an expansion?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wonder how this works with 'consent' given at gunpoint, by a non-resident of the home, or both of these conditions being met in the same incident.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Gunpoint renders consent involuntary.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Expands? Matlock was from the early '70s if I remember Crim Pro I correctly.

Joejuh v. Randolph last year involved a a co-resident who was present, this dude was gone.

How is this an expansion?

Pretty much what I was thinking. Its simply failing to expand the right to not consent to people who aren't present after they already expanded it to allow one person present to overrule the consent of another person present.

 

[rambone]

Gunpoint renders consent involuntary.

Or threatening to kidnap your children.

.

Rojas testified that the police, upon returning to the residence about an hour after Fernandez’ arrest, began questioning her four-year-old son with out her permission. App. 81, 93. Rojas asked to remain present during that questioning, but the police officer told her that their investigation was “going to determine whether or not we take your kids from you right now or not.” Id., at 93. See also ibid. (“I felt like [the police] were going to take my kids away from me.”). Rojas thus maintained that she felt “pressured” into giving consent. Id., at 93–94. See also id., at 93 (“I felt like I had no rights.”). After about 20 or 30 minutes, Rojas acceded to the officer’s request that she sign a consent form. Rojas testified that she “didn’t want to sign [the form],” but did so because she “just wanted it to just end.” Id., at 100.
​

 

[ryknoll3]

Would an occupant that has no stake in or ownership of the property be able to consent? If you're aunt is staying the weekend, you're out of the house and the cops show up, is her consent valid? Is evidence seized admissible? Can the cleaning lady who comes on Friday consent to a search of your home? Just curious.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Gunpoint renders consent involuntary.

It held up the last time of which I am aware that it was used. Some people wonder why I have a trust issue regarding police.

 

[ryknoll3]

Found this site with lots of examples and cited case law to back them up to answer my own question:

Welcome to Legal Update

So an aunt could consent to a search of areas where a guest would be received.

I think from my reading it would be shaky ground for a maid to grant consent.

 

[ryknoll3]

Pretty much what I was thinking. Its simply failing to expand the right to not consent to people who aren't present after they already expanded it to allow one person present to overrule the consent of another person present.

What circumstances is this allowed? Besides parent-child, where the parent has "control" of the residence and can allow a search of child's room absent or against the child's consent, I was under the impression that if two co-equal residents were present, a no from one was a no, regardless of the consent of the other, unless in the case of exigent circumstances. I know being locked up in the patrol car out front makes you somehow "absent", but other than that, how does this work?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would an occupant that has no stake in or ownership of the property be able to consent? If you're aunt is staying the weekend, you're out of the house and the cops show up, is her consent valid? Is evidence seized admissible? Can the cleaning lady who comes on Friday consent to a search of your home? Just curious.

Generally, no. The courts have established residency tests. You don't have to be on the lease, but things like how long you've lived there, if you pay bills, if you get mail there, etc. The aunt could consent to a search of her bags and the room she's in control of, but not a full search.

What circumstances is this allowed? Besides parent-child, where the parent has "control" of the residence and can allow a search of child's room absent or against the child's consent, I was under the impression that if two co-equal residents were present, a no from one was a no, regardless of the consent of the other, unless in the case of exigent circumstances. I know being locked up in the patrol car out front makes you somehow "absent", but other than that, how does this work?

The case law was set with a husband/wife. She said they could search, he said they couldn't, they searched, SCOTUS said no. Prior to that it worked like trespass in most states. If one person with interest said you could stay, you could stay. Say your a house guest and the husband says you have to leave, the wife says you don't. You aren't trespassing, because she is giving you permission to stay. The same applied to police asking consent to search. That was a fairly recent case, within the past 10 years for sure.

 

[Cygnus]

Found this site with lots of examples and cited case law to back them up to answer my own question:

Welcome to Legal Update

So an aunt could consent to a search of areas where a guest would be received.

I think from my reading it would be shaky ground for a maid to grant consent.

A good maid would do this:

family guy maid consuela no - Bing Videos