verbaltoxin: They arrested the guy, came back, and got his girlfriend's consent to search. Am I missing something? What's unreasonable or illegal about that? I figured the liberal judges would be all about this since it was a domestic violence case.
ginandbacon: Is this a reversal? I'm a little confused here. I need a Fark Lawyer.
TNel: verbaltoxin: They arrested the guy, came back, and got his girlfriend's consent to search. Am I missing something? What's unreasonable or illegal about that? I figured the liberal judges would be all about this since it was a domestic violence case.Because a girlfriend was most likely not on the lease/title.
imontheinternet: When you combine this ruling with all the state laws against "disorderly conduct," "disturbing the peace," etc. that are designed to allow cops to arrest anyone at any time, we've all just effectively lost our ability to refuse to consent to a search.
Rincewind53: I really don't have much of a problem with this, though I can see issues where the police try to manipulate the non-consenting person out of the house.
Karac: I have to wonder exactly when the Justices believe Fernandez's refusal to a search expired. Obviously it was some time after he said "I don't want you in here", and some time before the cops came back.I guess I'd just like to know how far away you have to be from your house before you can no longer tell the police they can't enter. Did they have to drive him all the way to central booking first? Or could they have just put the cuffs on him, sat him in the car, and then gone back and asked Rojas if they could come in? Or is it a time thing - is your assertion of your fourth amendment rights only good for x number of minutes?And as for you Alito, you absolute cock: "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence." - do you consider the police not being able to enter when they first got there and Fernandez said 'no' to also be a denial of Rojas' position?
Rincewind53: That doesn't make a difference regarding consent-to-search law. If you live in a house, no matter whether you're on the lease or on the title, the police can use your consent to search. The police basically have to determine whether the person giving consent is authorized to allow people to enter the house. Clearly a live-in girlfriend is authorized to let people into the house.
Rincewind53: ginandbacon: Is this a reversal? I'm a little confused here. I need a Fark Lawyer.Not really. Previous Supreme Court precedent said that if there were two people in a house, and one gave the police consent to search but the other refused consent, the police couldn't enter over the second person's objections. Now they addressed a new question, which is whether or not the police could go back to the house after the second person was no longer there and enter when there's only one person in the home saying yes, and no one there presently saying no.I really don't have much of a problem with this, though I can see issues where the police try to manipulate the non-consenting person out of the house.
WTF Indeed: It's a domestic violence case, the police had reason to believe a person was in danger, something that has allowed police to enter a residence without a warrant since forever.
Princess Ryans Knickers: "Her home"? Really? She's just the freaking girlfriend you authoritarian, Nazi loving twats!
eldritch2k4: During the period of detention, the officers went back to the residence and asked the remaining resident (whose name was on the lease) to search; she consented.
eldritch2k4: For those of you who aren't going to read the article:Subby is trolling. The case in question involved two people who were home initially. One consented, one didn't. The one who didn't was being arrested for a domestic dispute. During the period of detention, the officers went back to the residence and asked the remaining resident (whose name was on the lease) to search; she consented.The police did not search the premises without a warrant or permission. They had permission from a resident of the property.
TNel: Who said she was living there? She could have just been there. I haven't read much into this case but just because someone is present in the home doesn't give them permission to grant entry.
Mercutio74: think the bolded part is the important part. If police were concerned about doing their jobs within the spirit of the constitution and with respect to the rule of law, then this ruling is perfectly fine. However, cops behave like cops so you know that we're going to see some kind of workaround where their objective becomes removing anyone from the home for whatever reason and hoping to get permission to search from the "easiest" person who's legally able to permit a search.
verbaltoxin: I figured the liberal judges would be all about this since it was a domestic violence case.
waltpeter: Whose name is on the lease? If it was a rented apartment, why not ask the landlord? The landlord legally owns the property.
Rincewind53: TFA doesn't say it, but that is the case, I assure you. She lived there, the police knew that, and no one is denying it.
Kuta: The three female justices voted against this erosion of the 4th Amendment, even though it was tied to a domestic abuse case. The authoritarians lined up to take it down as usual.
Relatively Obscure: Here's an interesting tidbit from SCOTUSblog:When the police returned an hour later, Rojas gave consent for the police to search the apartment, and the trial court later found that consent to be voluntary. (Justice Ginsburg's dissent says that there is "cause to doubt" the voluntary nature of her consent, and the facts are somewhat unsavory, with Rojas claiming the officers threatened to take her children.)
Rincewind53: Kuta: The three female justices voted against this erosion of the 4th Amendment, even though it was tied to a domestic abuse case. The authoritarians lined up to take it down as usual.Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. The staunchest defenders against police power regarding the 4th Amendment tend to be Scalia and Thomas, because they take an originalist view on government power. Usually it's the liberals who believe in allowing the police (read: the state) leeway to conduct investigations.
Literally Addicted: Would the evidence found for the robbery be considered admissable if the original arrest was for domestic abuse?That just seems awfully...unlawful? I don't know, I'm neither a lawyer or a police officer, but it would leave anyone open to being arrested and having their homes searched for any possible thing. It's a terrible precedent. It just feels sneaky.
TheShavingofOccam123: So if police knock on my door politely, do I have to open the door?I understand if they are pounding on the door, screaming "this is the police!", a different reaction may be required.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 20 2017 11:45:43
Runtime: 0.439 sec (438 ms)