Supreme Court Backs Searches in Some Cases

Supreme Court Backs Searches in Some Cases
Supreme Court Rules 5-3 Police Cannot Always Search a Home When One Resident Objects

By GINA HOLLAND

WASHINGTON Mar 22, 2006 (AP)— The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court's new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.

Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man's wife invited them in.

The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches covers a scenario when one home occupant wants to allow a search and another occupant does not.

The ruling by Justice David H. Souter stopped short of fully answering that question — saying only that in the Georgia case it was clear that Scott Fitz Randolph was at the door and objected to the officers entry.
(snip/...)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1754877&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

anything can just about be probable cause.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Betcha could find multiple cases with reverse results with the gender roles switched.

Where the hell does "Male Power!" come in to play whatsoever? Oh wait, you didn't read the article....

"Randolph and his wife, Janet, were having marital troubles. She led officers to evidence later used to charge her husband with cocaine possession. That charge was on hold while the courts considered whether the search was constitutional."

"Stevens said that "assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other's constitutional right to deny entry to their castle."

"The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away."


"court's new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse."

I'd rather have the freedom from search. Sorry to those who don't agree. Robert's, Scalia, and Pubic Hair have presented their ruling as a ruse under the guise of LIMITING/DISMANTLING Amendment 4.IMO

for assistance with DV cases. The search that revealed the cocaine in no way had anything to do with the reason that the police were called in the first place. DV happens whether you are drunk, on drugs, or completely sober.

"Supreme Court Backs Searches in Some Cases"

vs.

"The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away"

What is wrong with our media? They cannot get even the small things right.

Usually a report on a Supreme Court case has a few decisions in one article, and I've seen cases where the title reflects one of the other decisions. But this is just incompetent or lazy journalism.

I think Alito will be bad, but Alito showed more independence in one vote.

Scalia, Roberts and Thomas? With Alito voting w/ majority?

on edit - Never mind. Alito didn't take part since he was just apointed and didn't hear arguments.

Because he wasn't there to hear the case. The Alito vote, where he sided against Scalia and Thomas, was on a stay of execution.

Didn't our leaders assure us that there was no need to stand and fight on this sick twisted bastard becuase he was not a lockstop freeptard? Weren't we keeping our powder dry for the next one? Isn't it always the next one? The court is now 5-4 with sick twisted bastards in a one vote minority. And don't rest assured about that '5' as 2 of the '5' are shaky about where they vote on any given day and none of them is exactly young.

Any Bush nominee could turn out to be fascist scum. It's hard to know who will be the worst, but yes, I would have voted no on both Roberts and Alito.

Supreme Court limits police searches in split decision; Roberts dissents

By Gina Holland, Associated Press Writer | March 22, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court's unity under new Chief Justice John Roberts was shattered Wednesday by a dispute over an old adage: A man's home is his castle.

The justices ruled 5-3 that police without a warrant cannot search a house when one resident agrees but another says no.

Roberts wrote his first dissent, a harsh complaint that police may now be helpless to protect domestic abuse victims.

The decision ended a trend of one-sided rulings by the court. About two-thirds of the 30 decisions under Roberts' leadership have been unanimous, a high number on a court that has in the past been polarized along ideological lines.

(snip)

Continued here.

A 911 call from either a witness or a victim is PROBABLE CAUSE to search a home with or without consent. He doesn't even deserve to be on the court if he doesn't know that.

thoughts?

Police go to a house, and ask if they can come in. The abuse victim says yes, but the perp says no. Umm, so?

The police are there, the victim can leave with the police. If a warrant is needed, how hard is that to get?

the suspect can be arrested.