Supreme Court Decision Shreds Fourth Amendment, Allows Police to Enter Homes Without Warrant

warrantIt’s rare that you’ll see me write something “alarming” about a Supreme Court ruling that has an impact on our Constitutional rights.  But when I read about their latest ruling which now gives police permission to enter a home without a search warrant, it did set off a few of my red flags.

In a 6-3 ruling based off a 2009 Los Angeles Police Department case, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement can enter someone’s home as long as they have the consent of at least one person inside.

The particular case, and how it played out, isn’t exactly what troubles me.

As the Los Angeles Times reported:

“The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.”

At that time Fernandez was arrested in connection with the robbery.  When the police returned later, without a warrant, Roxanne Rojas allowed them in.  During that visit they found a shotgun and gang-related materials.


This ruling says that the co-owner of the dwelling must be “physically present” to object if one of the owners of the dwelling is giving their consent.

Does this open the door to the possibility of officers finding a way to arrest and remove a co-owner of a dwelling, for the purposes of removing their “objection” to a search if they have the consent of another person?

I think it could.  It seems that all the officers would have to do is find any reason to take the person objecting to their search into custody, remove them from the premises, then come back to search the home.

What also worries me about this ruling is it opens the door for “their word versus mine.”  What if at the time someone gives their consent, though without recorded evidence there might not be any proof – then later they claim they never gave their permission?

Or heck, what if police officers lie and say they got permission?

In both situations you’ll have little or no proof either way other than what the person who supposedly gave consent is saying and what the police officers say.  Unless you have officers video record the person giving their consent, which opens the door for other potential abuse and unanswered hypotheticals.

While I understand that in certain circumstances obtaining a search warrant is tedious, especially when it’s obvious that something criminal is being hidden, I just can’t help but feel that this ruling opens the doors for many Americans to have their Fourth Amendment rights tossed out the window.


And while I usually lean toward the side of “if you have nothing to hide then why worry about allowing the cops to search your place,” that doesn’t matter when it relates to our Constitutional rights.

I’m sure this ruling will bring out a lot of the voices of those who strongly oppose the NSA’s tactics.  And while similar, I don’t see the two as being equal.  I feel there’s a drastic difference between the NSA’s surveillance programs and law enforcement actually coming into your home to search it.

But what do you think?  Does this ruling infringe on our Fourth Amendment rights?

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • AzSandrat

    No, it doesn’t conflict with the 4th amendment. The have permission. The do not require permission from everyone in the home, just one of the owners. Otherwise, you could wind up with a situation where one occupant calls the police because of the activities of their roommate, then the roommate denies the police entry when they arrive.

    • Bryan ĸ McDonald

      ?? How does it NOT conflict? : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      It doesn’t say”unless someone says it’s OK to violate this right”

      What’s to stop a woman who is cheating on her husband to buy an illegal gun, call the cops, have her husband arrested for “domestic violence” then have the cops return and find the illegal gun? No warrant, no illegal activity by the husband but a lifetime of repairing the damage.

      This ruling shows what an absolute joke the current SCOTUS is.

      • not sure

        If you think about it, police already have the right to enter a home without permission if there is a viewable felony, ie. the owner opens the door and the police see a bag of coke in plain sight. Or if there is a situation where someone is in obvious danger, ie. yelling for help or sounds of pain, etc. All police every really needed is consent of the owner or owners to search, it doesnt say how many owners or all owners or any resident of the home. If you live in an apartment with your wife but she’s not on the lease and she consents to a search is that illegal?. I does bring up the point about spousal abuse, if the husband has beat the wife and the cops show up can the husband deny access to the house?. I think the ruling just means to clarify the means to which entry or search can happen, which sounds to me like the rules already on the books. If a suspect commits a felony and is arrested (outside the home) I dont think its too difficult to obtain a warrant for a search of the suspects home anyway. They still cant enter your house without permission or a warrant and that has not been affected, so long as any resident/owner(s) doesnt give permission. I dont see where its a big violation or that much of a change to what is currently allowed.

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        The implication is that the consent can be coerced, or even more blatantly lied about by the cops. Absent an actual recording the cop will be believed over the person that allegedly gave consent.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        gonna agree that for the most part s court is useless

      • BrennanMarshall

        This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 4th amendment jurisprudence. You always have the right to consent to a search – what kind of Constitution would it be, if persons didn’t even have the right to consent to police action? That in itself is taking away a choice that people have – the choice to demand a warrant, or the choice to consent to the search.

        Co-Owners of a dwelling are just that, co-owners. They both share an equal stake, and they both have the right to consent to searches of the dwelling. It is different if one of the residents is not the owner, but if they are co-owners, they have equal rights of consent. If one consents, there is no violation of the 4th amendment.

        In this case, the question is whether there was probable cause to arrest the person. Probable cause is a “fair probability” that a particular person was involved in the commission of a crime. According to the facts here they chased the person into an apartment building, and then heard some kind of shouting or domestic disturbance. Both of these are offenses that the officers themselves witnessed. There was – as determined by multiple courts – probable cause to arrest, so the only issue is whether or not consent was given. What right does the court have – or any person – to tell a woman she cannot consent to a search of her own home?

        In regard to your misplaced hypothetical regarding the woman planting evidence – she would have the ability to do that already, regardless of this decision. #1, the police could just use her information and her statement as probable cause to secure a warrant anyway, or #2, the police could simply show up when he’s not around, and ask for consent to search the premises, or #3, the police could just ask her to bring them the gun at the station, or #4, she could just do #3 on her own volition.

        Stop pretending this is some outrageous violation of the 4th amendment, when you really don’t understand the 4th amendment at all. US v. Matlock was the first SCOTUS decision regarding consent searches, and that was decided in the 70’s. The Prosecution has to prove that consent was given prior to using the evidence, so there are checks on the system. Georgia v. Randolph, from 2006 decided what happens if one party consents and another does not – in that case, the police must secure a warrant. What made this case unique is that the non-consenting party left the premises. If the police had showed up, and only the woman had been home, they would have been able to search the house without issue. And in fact, that is what happened. After this person was arrested, they went back to the home, asked the woman for a second time if she consented to a search, and she said that she did.

        There is nothing in that factual scenario that undermines any notion of being secure in your person or effects, nor is there any departure from 4th amendment jurisprudence, or existing case law and precedent on the issue. I feel like this is mostly a gut reaction from people that have never actually looked into the warrant requirement and what it means.

        If someone consents to the search, and there is no longer anyone around to “un-consent,” consent has been given. The woman has equal ownership, so why should we give the man more power? Equal rights, right?

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        To begin with, I agree with most of your assessment.

        However “a fundamental lack of understanding of 4th amendment jurisprudence” is inaccurate.

        A fundamental lack of all the details of this case, however, would be correct.

        After posting here I found that a many of my assumptions were incorrect and having read the decision by Scalia I still feel as if they have
        rewarded the officers who obtained the “consent” for laziness. If an hour had already passed and the suspect was in custody the only reason for
        not requesting a warrant was laziness.

        As well, I agree with the defendant, the girlfriend and the dissenting justices that the consent was coerced.

        In the end I still disagree with Scalia et al and find Ginsberg et al to be more constitutionally correct.

        One more thing, Reading Scalia’s opinion, I actually found “Illinois v. Rodriguez,
        497 U. S. 177 (1990), to be far more egregious than this case. In that case the woman who consented to the search was not even an actual resident of the apartment at the time of the search and the court still upheld because “the police reasonably believed that Fischer was a resident.”

        In the end I still think the decision was wrong. However, since there are similar cases that were decided both ways, my “outrage” over it has been
        tempered.

        In the end I was guilty of being manipulated by a poorly written article. I still think Ginsberg was more constitutionally correct.

      • AzSandrat

        Seriously? Did you even RTFA? In what way is the 4th amendment being violated when the police ask to enter the home, are granted permission by one resident but not by the other? Nowhere does it say that all persons need to agree to the police entering and searching. It’s not unreasonable when permission has been granted.

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Well, first of all you’re kind of late to the party on this. In any case, there are a number of Supreme Court cases that find very differently as to whom may grant consent in the absence of the suspect whose belongings are to be searched. As well, it can also be quite questionable as to whether consent is coerced.

      • AzSandrat

        And yet, the woman who gave consent was a resident and had legal standing to give consent. Yet you still want to claim that it was a violation of the 4th amendment? Again, did you actually RTFA or just the comments?

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Not sure what “RTFA” means, but if you’re asking me if I read the article I did. I also read the entire decision by Scalia. As I stated, there is quite a bit of conjecture that the “consent” was coerced. Namely – the woman on the stand SAID it was coerced. The “jury” didn’t believe her testimony that the consent was coerced, because, shockingly, the jury believed the District attorney and an army of lawyers protecting the police over the black woman living with the suspect.

      • AzSandrat

        That’s actually what trials are for: to get to the truth. If a weapon is in a common property residence and neither of the residents claim ownership, it’s really up to the judge/jury to determine the facts. The scenario you describe could just as easily be executed by one spouse or the other calling the police and claiming the other spouse pulled a gun on them. It’ll have to be up to the cops/judge/jury to determine the truth either way. You have let your imagination get the better of you trying to determine a scenario where it’s wrong for one of two residents to give police permission to enter and search without the consent of the other resident. Nowhere in the letter or spirit of the law is unanimous consent required.

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        My imagination? No, sorry, not at all. My original point is quite valid. Unanimous consent IS required unless there is a mitigating circumstance where the consent of one party can override the denial of consent of the other party. Otherwise there would never have been a case to begin with. In the end the 2nd party can still be coerced to consent even if they didn’t want to, which it appears is exactly what happened in this case.

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        One more thing…..Trials are for getting to the truth? HA! that is comical. You should do stand-up….

      • AzSandrat

        So you only support the bits and pieces of the Constitution that you like. Got it. The stuff about a right to a fair trial is comical. Now I see where you are coming from: a delusional view of the world where the only “rights” that matter are the ones you approve of, at the time (subject to change). Peace out, bro.

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        That is an amazing amount of incorrect assumptions for one post.

        Of course I believe in the right to a fair trial, it would be awesome if that was actually what trials were, the problem is that they rarely are.

        I “approve” of all the rights in the constitution – the thing that would be really great was if the US Government did.

  • Bryan ĸ McDonald

    This is a travesty. Day by Day, bit by bit the government is taking away all of our rights and freedoms. The US in 2014 is a more repressive society than the Soviet Union in 1955.

    • Lonnie Molbury Jr

      It will have to come to a fight. the problem with merica is, they keep us just happy enough so we don’t protest. everyone has to get to their job to pay their bills and because of it, everyone keeps their heads down and falls in line! Other countries are rising up against their oppressive governments while we post food pics and share cat memes!

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Hey!!! There’;s nothing wrong with food and cats if we’re still paying attention to the important stuff. !!!

        Seriously though, your point is valid. we sit and do nothing while our government makes Josef Stalin look like an amateur.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        another white trash regressive FOX “news” watcher?

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Pray tell, how exactly would you even remotely come to that conclusion? Are you not aware that this decision was made mostly along party lines and that the Republicans are the ones who voted for oppression and trashing of the 4th amendment. it was the three Liberal female justices who voted for protection of the 4th amendment. Since my opinion and my posts have been in support of the female justices how did you come to your (INCORRECT) conclusion that I might be a Fox viewer? I’m intrigued.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ” our government makes josef stalin look (like) an amateur”
        the biggest scumbag in history; and U compare our government to HIM??
        that’s the crap I hear and see on FOX “news” and associated scumbags on regressive rightwing outlets. I am relieved that U seem to hate the drastic inconsistencies on that crybaby white trash pseudo-“Christian” network.
        hopefully this has edified somewhat

      • Charles Vincent

        If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck trashy. In this case the government is a duck and worse than Stalin, either way the government is definitely far from benevolent. It much more resembles a malignant cancer that needs to be excised and irradiated to make sure its dead.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        “worse than stalin” –who ( along with MAO) are the two biggest scumbags in history: paling in comparison the crap hitler and the Nazis did.
        Chuckie: U are a complete shitbag– not an imbecile; a shitbag– a bag of shit. I did occasionally like SOME stuff U posted.
        Im willing to wager a whole dollar that U didn’t view OUR government this way until Obama came on board; ergo — you are a racist and a loser crybaby
        ————–you do not exist

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually Stalin and Mao both killed more people than Hitler.

        “Im willing to wager a whole dollar that U didn’t view OUR government this way until Obama came on board; ergo — you are a racist and a loser crybaby”

        As to the First part I did and I have been watching the slow slide into tyranny for the majority of my adult life. the fact that Obama is accelerating that slide is most disconcerting. Where is my dollar?

        Well I don’t think I am a “racist” since I am not a self loather.
        On a side note I am happy that your posts are less disjointed and more coherent.
        What pray tell did you actually like?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        im highly aware of mao and stalins escapades- mao as high as (??) 60 million,,,,
        what do I like??????> look up “Marilyn lange ” photos; I also love athletics and keeping it simple. I love what I do ( self employed chef) and love screwing with people in a fun way. random acts of kindness ( done anonymously) can really mess with someone,,,,but keeps them smiling and befuddled FOREVER!!
        my hated? religion/ religious nuts. Liars…… boooobjobs (UUUGGHHH) and fire ants. don’t like cats either

      • Charles Vincent

        Have I ever lied in your opinion? And what about dogs?

      • surfjac

        Now, now, dick cheney is the biggest scumbag in history.

      • surfjac

        ..and get slammed by many for expressing opinions.

    • James Gasowski

      Over exaggerate much

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Nope, not even a little bit. And your reaction is the exact complacency they want and expect.

      • James Gasowski

        You are absolutely right thank god we have heroic patriotic champions such as yourself to keep the wolf’s at bay from us sheep , when the war comes i am sure you will command the new army of North Virginia and ballads will be written of your exploits. I sir salute you, what are your orders?

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Nope, but I will find a useful place in a revolutionary Army as Nurses are always needed in times of battle. Your sarcasm is misplaced however, as you obviously have a naive view of how many freedoms you have lost in this country in the last 60 years. No worries, you’ll likely be one of the first to go when something like your humorous ad hominem happens. You’re what’s referred to as a Useful idiot.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        no war coming,,,,,,,,,,except with the white trash crybaby regressive tea party scum religious idiots who “think” Obama is a commie
        keep crying; and get another guns from the wealthy NRA

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        I’d like to respond, but I can’t find a coherent thought to base my response on.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        then respond to my other refrains. NOTE: there IS NO WAR COMING.
        ……………unless the republicans get back in power and they drag the VOODOO ( see: religion) into our governing/government
        lucid enough?

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Lucid? Well no, you haven’t been yet. But your point is made. You are a “Progressive” tolerant and accepting of ALL…….who agree with you , but let someone hold a view different than yours then you are no different than the Fox couch potatoes you rail against. Your atheist ridicule of religion reveals your true nature. you’re no different than the people you purport to loathe.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey sponge head— im agnostic; NOT atheist (ooops,,,, b mcd goes down in flame again) and I think atheists –although closer to reality than believers– are still idiots to stress there is NO GOD. I have NO PROBLEM with differing views if they can be backed up with FACTS: not “beliefs” or opinions. I want to learn more- that’s why I watch ( laughingly most the time) FOX “news” but they keep the same regressive lying continuance-
        no war coming. war on women? perhaps– war on REEEEELIGION??? please do!! religion biggest screwup in the history on humankind. I tolerate religion as long as I don’t have to hear it/see it/smell it(uggh) ,,,,I tolerate people who smoke and tolerate drinkers and druggies. My toleration has me leave the scene. I am unable to “leave the scene” with religious scumbags who are suffering from some lemming spell believing in VOODOO and some imaginary ‘in the sky’ GOD ( of course; all religions are RIGHT and all others wrong) who are non stop crying and attempting to FORCE their superstition upon my country
        tolerant? not of stupid non thinking scum- no sir

      • James Gasowski

        Have you picked out theme music and a battle cry yet, i would stay away from shouting” wolverines” as the remake was quite horrible and the use of it as a battle cry has been somewhat tarnished as a result. Viva la revolution!!!” When voting in the booths fail vote from the rooftops”.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        yeah,,,,,just like the hippies in 60’s complained,,,,,

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        non-sequitur.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        not at all; the hippies decried GOVT as it was taking over ( really???) via Vietnam and Watergate and crap such as that. Seems they were wrong ; as I suspect U are . Wanna bet that you and I grow old with all of our useful freedoms intact?

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Wow. Are you truly that Naive? You don’t see the government of the last 25 years as being more corrupt, more controlled by Corporate Interests, more oppressive with the Patriot Act and the NDAA as teh last 3 presidents have shredded the constitution? Is your head really stuck that far up your butt to see that the illusion of freedom you have was gone around the same time the hippies started jogging in the Ford era? Now I don’t think you’re as much of a jerk as I originally though, now I just feel sorry for you. Sucks for you, pity is so much less interesting than loathing.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey idiot– (a) the hippies were finished by the time Ford entered office: so PLEEEEEZ “try” to get a better grip on OUR history. (b) “shredded the constitution” and giving that to Clinton/bush/Obama? Im willing to wager a TON that U didn’t cry when Clinton and bush were doing what EVER they did ( I do agree somewhat with the bush reference) but now U are crying as Obama is in power as president. A constitutional lawyer and teacher I suspect Obama knows a weeee bit more than you and I ( times 100) about the constitution and its applications relating to presidential power. ( c) you pity me? DUUUUDE– U are a rangers fan!!

    • Randy Hyle

      Not the U.S. government per se, though they are doing their fair share of taking away our rights. This is just another of a completely irrational, stupid ruling by the Supreme Court legislating from the bench.

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        A – this was NOT legislating from the bench. It was, for all intents and purposes for this ONE case and could very well be seen differently in a similar situation in the future.

        B- The SCOTUS is a BRANCH of the US Government.

    • Robert Phillips

      You are absolutely correct. It all started with the seatbelt law.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      not where I live,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,im completely free and do what I want
      ,,,,,,,,then again: being financially Ok and living in paradise ( see: pompano beach FL) probably is more freedom that 98% of america

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Right free. So long as you don’t choose to live off the grid. Then the state will knock on your door and force you to participate in their monopoly even after they admit you don’t NEED to, they will just MAKE you. Don’t believe me? Ask your neighbor across the state from you in Cape Coral – Robin Speronis. Right, you’re free. As for paradise, that’s subjective I think the weather in Florida is disgusting. I hate humidity so “paradise” wouldn’t be my descriptor.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey schnuck– if I wanted to live “off the grid” I can do so with the proper facilities and (of course) giving a proper ‘honorarium’ to the authorities which control such a decision. Cape coral is too dull for me; no waves; sedentary lifestyle. Humidity? Geeeee—!! I didn’t known it is july /agust already!! seems the shithole U live in now is bereft of 78 degree temperatures ( with about 33% humidity today) and that azure blue clear ocean across the street which offers me (a) scuba /snorkeling (b) surfing -depending on oceanic conditions. Maybe I should move to some frozen over-pollted quagmire or land locked plains area?? NOOOOO thank U– I have lived in 5 states; visted 27– I will keep my lil’ ol’ hurricane area jes’ 4 meeee!!
        Live off the grid? no need to: I have plenty of income and investments (IE : money) and have no need to give a shit about that lifestyle. I like my debauchery and love WHERE I live. Since U know nothing of LIVING here please please continue to hate south(east) florida,,,,,, go to Denver for a vacation
        I remain free

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Shmuck, idiot , sponge head, Excellent ad hominems, I expect nothing less from a mindless dolt such as yourself.The rest of your incoherent drivel is irrelevant to me. The assumptions you made about me have not been anywhere near to accurate and your ignorance flows from your keyboard like diarrhea from a Lactose intolerant child. Nothing you said is even worthy of a response, but I decided to anyway, just to remind you one last time how unrelentingly intolerant and insufferably ignorant you are. Bye chicky, we’re done here, though I’m certain you’ll type at least one more diatribe of stupidity, folks like you thrive on getting the last word and thus you shall have it, I feel dumber every time I read one of your posts, it’s hard to believe you’re actually smart enough to know how to type. I won’t waste any more of my time interacting with a useless idiot such as you.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        awwww,,,,,,,,,,,,did da puddy cat faw ‘ down and go “boom”??

  • Lonnie Molbury Jr

    this will change when a politicians girlfriend gets him arrested for the coke in their shared apartment. Until then our 4th amendment is starting to look like Swiss cheese!

  • Matthew Reece

    I can only hope that there will be more state legislatures like the one in Indiana that will allow residents to treat police as though they were any other kind of intruder.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      In kind of like that– if Im innocent of all crimes and/or they do NOT have warrant

  • Sunny Ray

    I just see there another way to make things more complicate and ambiguous, as a result, easier for police to do whatever they want. Would they lie to serve their own purpose? of course they will, politicians do it all the time. There are good cops too fortunately, but the temptation would be too great, why bother procrastinate when they could just do it…

  • Wes Chester

    I think that the impact of this ruling would depend upon how broad the decision is written ( Will it serve as precedent or not?). But the article is written with a presumption I do not hold to be self-evident, namely that the police operate as a “they”. My experience is that the police are not a conspiratorial body in the US. You can’t count on some kind of coordinated (you arrest the perp, I’ll break the wife down) attack on freedom. They don’t get paid enough to risk jail-time manipulating justice. Go ahead, you can produce hundreds of examples through history of corruption, but for every one, there’s a million average cops doing a fine job.

    To posit that the average citizen could find a cop at his door while he’s out, in custody etc. and that they will ask the right to a warrantless search sounds as paranoid in its own way as the extreme right’s “they’re going to come take my guns” argument. If you ask me, this ruling will have much less negative impact on our freedoms than citizens united, or many other decisions of this court. This kind of “don’t trust the cops” mentality is pretty paranoid in general. Not that I’m a fan of all laws. I don’t think they are all just. But I am aware that when we “us and them” cops, we create a “war on citizens” that is no more valid than the “war on christmas.” I care deeply about abuses of power, but in my opinion, the author goes wrong here when he suggests that this presents the kind of generalized threat. If the start of this chain of logic comes from getting arrested, I think I’ll never notice….

    • Bryan ĸ McDonald

      I am far from a cop hater or basher. My father served in NY’s Finest and I have a number of relatives and friends in law enforcement. With that said, this decision is TAILOR made to assist corrupt law enforcement agents.

      • Dana

        I don’t usually do this, but… TAILOR. Tailor-made. You know… “tailor”… the word they replaced with that idiotic word “sewist.” *gag*

      • Bryan ĸ McDonald

        Thanks !!! appreciated.

    • Dana

      You’re white and relatively not-lower-class, right? Then you have no idea what you’re talking about. They target the lower classes and people of color all the damn time, and they don’t have to have some kind of Ultimate Nationwide Conspiracy to pull that off. It just takes a local department being corrupt. On top of that, some of our enlightened federal laws allow them to just take your stuff on *suspicion* of drug sale or use and, even if you’re found innocent, keep it and auction it off. This is where a LOT of police-department funding’s coming from now. Think about that if you ever attend a federal auction. Like as not some of it’s cop-stolen property.

  • anoyn

    No there is nodifference, the NSA is still directly invading your privacy with out consent in the exact same manner. I can’t believe I am seeing this on this sight lol

    • strayaway

      Agreed. It’s an irony that the protectors of the Fourth Amendment and allies of the tea party in just this one issue were three liberal members of the Court. Thank you Judge Ginsberg.

      However, yesterday,

      “The Obama administration asked a federal surveillance court on Wednesday for permission to hold millions of phone records longer than the current five-year limit.

      The Justice Department argued that data needs to be maintained as evidence for the slew of privacy lawsuits filed in the wake of the Edward Snowden’s leaks about National Security Agency surveillance. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other groups are suing to shut the program down, claiming it violates the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.” -The National Journal

      It’s the ACLU vs. the Obama administration. Progressives will have to choose sides.

      In response the this article’s last paragraph: One’s phone and computer contains the most private of messages, passwords, and thoughts. What is more central to the Fourth Amendment; That we be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects” or that we just be secure in our “houses”? I would argue that our communications and computer content often involves all four.

  • Charles Vincent

    When you allow them or in the case of the 2nd amendment encourage the government to trample it you in effect give the government title to trample them all GG lefties. Somehow I told you so just isn’t enough.

    • Dana

      Don’t paint us all with the same brush. I’m pro-2nd and I don’t think it is just for hunting. (And I am OK with hunting too. OMG, a LIBERAL MEAT-EATER. We exist!)

      All too many times we ASK for this police state, then complain when we get what we asked for. Maybe someday we’ll learn, but I’m not sure just when that will be. And we should have known better already… the liberal lefty hippie anti-war movement in the sixties got hassled a lot by COINTELPRO, and if you’re plugged into leftist media at all these days, you know stuff is still going on. Falls on deaf ears. I think it’s mostly the center-left that’s crazy like this, not the far left per se, but we *all* suffer the consequences when moderates sell us out.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmm this wasn’t a comment on you personally as I didn’t know you before you posted. My generalization on the left and their push to alter/abolish the second amendment is a fair characterization.
        I did not ask for this Police state and in fact I have been called pretty much every name you can imagine when I comment on it in what ever form it takes i.e. the anti 2A push or the NSA(government is not trustworthy). Also I wouldn’t call anyone pushing to trample our rights a moderate but that’s just me. hopew that clears up things for you.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        show me legislation or laws by the administration which ABOLISHES the 2nd amendment
        restricting assault style guns and asking for backround checks??
        c’mon chuckie,,,,,,

      • Charles Vincent

        I said the lefts END goal is to abolish the second amendment. but here is a small list of the steps they have taken in that direction so far.
        National Firearms Act (1934)
        Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
        Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
        Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
        Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
        Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
        Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired) (wanted to enact a more strict version last year)
        Would you like me to list state laws that blatantly violate The FOPA act? I can start with Connecticut?

        The goal of the left is to abolish the second amendment, as it stands now they have taken many steps in that direction.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I don’t care about state laws: that what the shitbags in the tea party decree as sovereign. and I don’t see our right to bear arms infringed,,,, nor destroying a well regulated militia. U lose

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t really lose you just see it differently but it doesn’t change the fact that every time the left pushes gun control the argument is always this will make us safer and its always they only thing they claim to want up until the next round when they ask for more. Its called baby steps they take a piece here and there and before you realize it the right is gone. I would guess that you dont think your 1st 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights havent been eroded either.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        cannot argue with that “baby step” suggestion but I have seen nothing which impedes MY lifestyle; ergo I don’t care.
        when MY life is affected I will alter my vote and political rhetoric.
        Go Heat!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Good thing you’re not an organic gardener then.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        that makes a ton of sense

      • Charles Vincent

        Inorite…

  • Dana

    You are OK with the NSA spying on us? What the hell is wrong with you?

    They could have caught the 9/11 attackers without any fancy equipment whatsoever if government agencies had done their damn jobs. Hell, they could have prevented it just not letting them get on the planes with box cutters. Or putting locks on the cockpit doors.

    We DO NOT need this high-tech crap to prevent tragedy. We just need to pay attention and use some damn sense.

  • Tsunami Jurai

    if thy are let in thy should be able to enter but not able to search without a warrent.

  • Eric

    It’s funny how this article fantasizes that the police will ” find any reason to take the person objecting to their search into custody” just so they can get the other tenant/owner’s consent to search. I’m sure most people on this site lean towards those notions of the government intruding on our lives. But, I must ask this obvious question. Have the police come to your house, arrested you on some made up charge, come back while you were in custody and received permission to search your home by your significant other? Probably not. However, I’m sure if something bad happened to someone you loved and the police lost evidence because this seemingly commonsense approach is taking away, making it that much harder to prosecute a case, you’d be upset and blame the government. You know, if you’re all worried about this coming back to bite you in the future, get the contraband out of the house and get a significant other that won’t give the police consent to search while your in custody. Just a thought.

    • Bine646

      Its called checks and balances- you know what our government was founded on. Its 101 that police need a warrant to search your property. The question should be- why wouldnt they need a warrant? Makes their job that much easier huh- less “police” work to actually do, no judge to keep them within the laws? A warrant state exactly what they are searching your home for- if the warrant says they are searching for drugs and they find guns- you cannot be prosecuted for the guns bc they were only there for the drugs. Guess that goes out the window now huh- they can come in, search your home and just make a laundry list of “illegal” things that you have? Sounds real fair- Police were not intended to have unlimited power- laws were meant to protect the citizens.

      Look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina and the warrantless searches during the Boston standoff- we are entering a police state

      • strayaway

        Or just walk away with your computer to download your hard drive and do a little fishing to find out all about you , your finances, your personal associations, sexual preferences, wiring code violations,and whatever else they can cite in court. As more laws are put into effect, more Americans are guilty of something. We aren’t that far from having government cameras being pointed at us much of the time.

      • Bine646

        drones are already in the air

  • Karen Christie

    I live in Canada, but the catch-22 is that if you refuse to let the police search your residence, that gives them probable cause to obtain a warrant, which they will and when they come back they will cause as much destruction as possible to your home and possessions. If you have nothing to hide, may as well let them in.

    • Pipercat

      No, make them get a warrant. Never, never talk to the police without a lawyer and never grant a warrant-less search. The warrant defines the search parameters.

  • Kayjulia

    We are in a POLICE STATE NOW and it is only going to get worse!

  • Robert Phillips

    This is an outrage! One of the most important Amendments, keeping the police from entering your home without any suspicion or warrant could be disastrous. This ruling brings the United States in line with Iraq, Iran,. Russiaa, China etc. Our last bastion of safety has been eroded.

  • PoppaDavid

    The reports did not say who rented the residence. I bet the girl friend was the front to the landlord. One report said that the girl friend appeared to have been beaten. My money is on a pattern of abuse by the boy friend, and when the police finally appeared to remove the boyfriend, the girl friend did what she could to keep him away.
    As a progressive, is it appropriate for a woman to control her body and terminate a pregnancy even if the father objects, but it isn’t appropriate for her to invite police into her home to take evidence against her boy friend?

  • Jim Bean

    I find myself agreeing with Allen. I’m not sure how that makes me feel.

    • Pipercat

      Relieved and less bloated!

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      jimboooo!!! :))

  • charleo1

    These cases involving warrant less entries, and searches, are interesting.
    In that the Constitution specifically addresses the issue. However, only in the
    broadest of terms. And I’d be willing to bet, for the first hundred years or so
    after the 4th Amendment was written. It was in practice, largely ignored. And,
    does not in all cases today, enjoy the support of the public at large. Especially on those occasions, where evidence of an especially heinous crime may not be admitted, due to a technical problem with how that evidence was discovered, collected, or handled by police. So, the case is thrown out, and the defendant walks. Leaving a stunned, and angry family feeling as though the system made sure the criminal’s Rights were protected. As their Right to justice was ignored completely. An issue quickly seized upon by both politicians, and prosecutors, running for office on a get tough on crime message. “I will fight for victims Rights, and put criminals that prey on good
    God fearin’ people, behind bars where they belong! It’s a seductive platform.
    But it has also had the affect of diluting the Civil Rights, and protections
    afforded by the Constitution to everyone.

  • Wes Chester

    I though I’d find reasonable discussion here, without such hyperbole. I withdraw my comments, and will seek a more rational forum in the future. I am extremely liberal, but also able to see that there is more than one angle to every issue. I am depressed to find a board full of people as extreme in their own way as FOX is on the other side.