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
police state get use to it people
WTF. Why can’t police just follow the laws they are supposed to be enforcing? Get a warrant, your house will be next.
Yea well they can try. My home is worth dying over. Is it worth them dying over to push a unconstitutional law?
more bs
Don’t $#%&!@* with me I $#%&!@* back
ridiculous!
This $#%&!@*s got to stop
Every day the vull$#%&!@* just keeps getting worse and worse.$#%&!@* those crooked pieces of $#%&!@*.
only if police r still standing,it against the law dumb asses.
This is the most screwed up ruling of all time. Citizens need protection from this c**p.