The Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without a warrant if they arrest the resident who refuses them access. In a 2006 ruling, the court determined that when police request permission to enter and residents disagree the objecting occupant's wishes prevail. This raises the possibility that law enforcement may now have an incentive to arrest and remove residents who object to the police entering a home.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
“We therefore hold that 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,” Alito said.
Police found a shotgun, ammunition and a knife when they searched the Los Angeles apartment that Walter Fernandez shared with his girlfriend, Roxanne Rojas.
Fernandez told police they could not enter. But shortly after his arrest, officers returned to the apartment and persuaded Rojas to let them in.
Fernandez is serving a 14-year prison term on robbery and guns charges.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent that “Fernandez's objection to the search did not become null upon his arrest and removal from the scene.”
Source: Associated Press
Photo: Wonderlane on Flickr
That is BS.
$#%&[email protected]*ing nazi pigs- this is why we revolted from england.
The Supreme Court should not be what good do they do nothing
Thats obamas doing!
Don’t open that box !
HERE WE GO AMERICA
Well Ted, The Moron is asking you “the Commie Idiot” Why didn’t your precious Obama Bin Laden wipe the law from the books? I mean haven’t the Dems been in control of $#%&[email protected]*? why didn’t they fix it? oh wait to quote another of your Comrades “What does it matter at this point? Not all laws are good laws regardless of who wrote it or passed it. In fact many of them including this one just down right SUCK! like you
I think we are heading for
Gone to far.