Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Supreme Court Rules Police DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home

warrantCounter Current News

Much to the surprise of the general public, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanded the ability of law enforcement to search without warrants.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court which ruled 6 to 3 that “when occupants of a residents disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present,” the Washington Post reported. “That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector,” the court added.  

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote.

“Alito said there was no need for officers to obtain a warrant,” the Post explained. “When they arrived the first time, having followed Fernandez from the scene of a robbery, Rojas answered the door crying, with a bump on her nose and blood on her hands and shirt.”

Alito noted that “denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence. Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent.”

The case in question stemmed from a 2009 arrest and search related to a robbery in Los Angeles.

What happened when police arrived was a girlfriend of an occupant allowed them to access the apartment, even though her boyfriend had refused to consent to the search.

But later, the girlfriend said she felt intimidated and only consented to the search because of police intimidation. This all happened after law enforcement had been told that they would not be given permission to search. The police persisted, and she caved to their request.

Initially, it was Roxanne Rojas who opened the door, but Walter Fernandez then quickly told officers they had to leave if they did not have a warrant, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights,” Fernandez yelled at them from inside the apartment.

According to court records, Fernandez was shortly thereafter arrested in connection with the robbery the police were investigating. It was after they had taken him away that they returned, an hour later, and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas’ consent because Fernandez was not there.

Even though they lacked the probable cause to obtain a warrant or enter without one legally, they had arrested him, and then returned to obtain the bullied consent from Rojas, after Fernandez refused.

Once inside, they found a shotgun and what they deemed “gang-related materials.”

But in a case eight years before that, the Supreme Court ruled that the refusal should have once and for all prohibited the police from entering, or even returning and pressing the issue.

“A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search” of his home “s dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,” the court had then determined.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, along with Elena Kagan penned the dissenting opinion in this ruling. They said that the decision is nothing short of an erosion of the Fourth Amendment, giving police a disturbing degree of power.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg said, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.”

She added that the ruling, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

(Article by M. David; image via Intellectual Takeout)

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/supreme-court-rules-police-do-not-need-a-warrant-to-search-your-home/

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
4596

13 Responses to Supreme Court Rules Police DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home

  1. tc says:

    All the Supreme Court did was render an OPINION. An opinion doesn’t change the law. The law still stands as written. Of course, stupid people and pigs won’t bother making that distinction. Pigs don’t think for themselves, they just follow orders.

    • SWIFT says:

      You are mistaken. Three times in the article is says the Supreme Court “ruled”, which has the authority of law.

  2. # 1 NWO Hatr says:

    “Much to the surprise of the general public, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanded the ability of law enforcement to search without warrants.”

    NO surprise to those of us who aren’t brainwashed.

    “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, along with Elena Kagan penned the dissenting opinion in this ruling. They said that the decision is nothing short of an erosion of the Fourth Amendment, giving police a disturbing degree of power.”

    THIS is the only real surprise.

    I would’ve guessed unanimous.

  3. PARACLETE says:

    This is it folks ….they’ve gone totally rogue.
    I consider this an act of war upon the American Patriots.

  4. Samfish says:

    Come on in
    I wouldn’t care if you had a piece of paper or not
    You bust down my door I’ll “fear for my life ”
    And make you wish you went and got a real job

    This is affront to our rights , I really don’t care what the supreme shit hole court says
    You know it won’t be their pussy asses showing up anyways so it’s easy for them to flex on this subject
    And guess what , turn around is fair play

    So supremes how is this going to play out with states that have a castle doctrine that states I can mow them down if they come in uninvited? Huh? Yeah didn’t think of that , two laws that won’t play nice with each other
    And I’ll choose which one I care about as they try to breech
    Just another act of war on the population

  5. Millard says:

    In my mind, that’s the straw that broke the camel’s back. However, they won’t dare “test it” until things get hot. Like a lot of controversial things they’ve “put into place” for later use, once the lead starts flyin’, who’s gonna argue? I don’t care to “hunker down” and wait for the SWAT team to be knockin’ on my door confiscating my guns. I’d rather be on the offensive, quick strikes, retreat, regroup, live to fight another day.

  6. Tedx says:

    Bottom line: Don’t open the door or let anyone else open the door for cops who do not have a warrant. If they drag you off (legally detain or arrest you as a suspect) they can then enter your home or property without a warrant provided no one is there who objects, which includes no one being there at all.

  7. Millard says:

    So this allows them to search your house and confiscate your guns when your not home?

  8. frost jack says:

    the Constitution is a contract that we the people will allow these people to govern us if the obey the rules laid down in the Constitution they have broken the contract, so i no longer have to obey there laws …

  9. NC says:

    Unfrigginbelievable…..

    And still this doesn’t mean all out war to people. I just don’t get it.

  10. Martist says:

    The f they DON’T need a warrant?! I don’t even care if they do have one anymore to be honest because the issuing “authority” is invalid and corrupt to the core! Done with their forked-tongue word games and sleight of hand. Their rules suck and it’s their stadium, referees and players but only if you choose to play their damn game. I ain’t playing their gay-ass game.

Leave a Reply