Welcome to the APBWeb.
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Roses's Avatar
    Roses is offline Member
    Join Date
    02-19-06
    Posts
    1,361
    Rep Power
    513351

    Top court rules against police in search case

    In first dissent, Roberts says ruling lacked 'practical guidance'

    The Associated Press
    Updated: 3:16 p.m. ET March 22, 2006


    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court’s new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.

    Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man’s wife invited them in.

    The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches covers a scenario when one home occupant wants to allow a search and another occupant does not.

    The ruling by Justice David Souter stopped short of fully answering that question — saying only that in the Georgia case it was clear that Scott Fitz Randolph was at the door and objected to the officers entry.


    Roberts dissents
    In his first written dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said that “the end result is a complete lack of practical guidance for the police in the field, let alone for the lower courts.”

    The case fractured a court that has shown surprising unanimity in the five months since Roberts became chief justice. Justices swapped barbs in their writings, with Souter calling Roberts’ view a “red herring.”

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas filed separate dissents, and Justice John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer wrote their own opinions to explain their votes in favor of the man whose home was searched.

    Stevens said that “assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other’s constitutional right to deny entry to their castle.”

    Georgia had asked the court to allow it to use evidence obtained in the 2001 search in Americus, Ga., that followed a police domestic dispute call.

    Randolph and his wife, Janet, were having marital troubles. She led officers to evidence later used to charge her husband with cocaine possession. That charge was on hold while the courts considered whether the search was constitutional.

    State court upheld
    Georgia’s Supreme Court ruled for Scott Randolph, and the high court agreed.

    “This case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims,” Souter wrote. “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.”

    Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing voter, joining the court’s four more liberal members.

    Roberts’ dissent was unusually long — almost as long as the main opinion. He predicted “severe” consequences for women who invite police in only to be overruled by their husbands.

    Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case, because he was not on the court when it was argued.

    The case is Georgia v. Randolph, 04-1067.

    © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    © 2006 MSNBC.com

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11959183/
    http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/1369/rosekdrosetransp9fk2eb.gif

    A Smile

    A smile cost nothing, but gives so much.

    It enriches those who receive it,
    without making poorer those who give.
    It takes but a moment, but the memory
    of it sometimes lasts forever.

    None is so rich or mighty that he
    can get along without it,
    and none is so poor but that
    he can be made rich by it.

    A smile creates happiness in the home,
    fosters goodwill in business,
    and is the countersign of friendship.

    It brings rest to the weary,
    cheer to the discouraged, sunshine to the sad,
    and it is nature's best antidote for trouble.

    Yet it cannot be bought, begged, borrowed,
    or stolen, for it is something that is of no
    value to anyone until it is given away.

    Some people are too tired to give you a smile.
    Give them one of yours, as none needs a smile
    so much as he who has no more to give.

    - author unknown

  2. #2
    Terminator's Avatar
    Terminator is offline BANNED
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    16,064
    Rep Power
    0
    Unbelievable

  3. #3
    Virginian's Avatar
    Virginian is offline Major
    Supporting Member Lvl 2
    Join Date
    12-28-05
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    8590746
    How retarded is that.

    What about if it's a DV situation, woman says "yes come in, I'm bleeding all over" and the guy says "F no, get out"?

    And it's not like they searched the house, she showed them where it was!

    Pretty soon you guys will have to get a form signed in front of three lawyers before you can enter a house.

  4. #4
    Retdetsgt's Avatar
    Retdetsgt is offline How did I get here!
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,944
    Rep Power
    7757747
    Quote Originally Posted by Virginian
    What about if it's a DV situation, woman says "yes come in, I'm bleeding all over" and the guy says "F no, get out"?

    And it's not like they searched the house, she showed them where it was!
    You can to in if you think someone is in danger. That's a different ballgame. Oregon has had the rule that one spouse can deny a search for years and it's never caused a problem in DV cases.

    Looking at it a different way, I really don't think one spouse should have the right to give away the civil rights of the other regarding search without warrant. Although I have nothing to hide, I'd be pissed if my wife told the police they could come in and shake down our house w/o my consent.
    When I used to be somebody (I'm center top)

    "A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about". -Thomas Sowell-

  5. #5
    lcsodre108's Avatar
    lcsodre108 is offline DUI Persecutor
    Join Date
    03-01-06
    Location
    Ward AR
    Posts
    313
    Rep Power
    87917
    That's why you seperate them first thing, how can the husband tell you not to search if he is outside in the back of the car?
    www.alliedoddballs.com
    I can't do this test when I am sober!

    Respect My AUTHORITAE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. #6
    Iron Man's Avatar
    Iron Man is offline Don't Tase me bro!
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Posts
    1,959
    Rep Power
    130328
    Quote Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
    You can to in if you think someone is in danger. That's a different ballgame. Oregon has had the rule that one spouse can deny a search for years and it's never caused a problem in DV cases.

    Looking at it a different way, I really don't think one spouse should have the right to give away the civil rights of the other regarding search without warrant. Although I have nothing to hide, I'd be pissed if my wife told the police they could come in and shake down our house w/o my consent.




    Good post sarge. My thoughts exactly.
    This message was brought to you by Tampons. We
    aren't the best thing in the world but we are right up
    there next to it.


    To them its always 'scary and aggressive' driving. To us its at times a matter of life and death." -LawnMM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYie3bB3OU

  7. #7
    121Traffic's Avatar
    121Traffic is offline Just Us
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-09-06
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,547
    Rep Power
    6332992
    Quote Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
    You can to in if you think someone is in danger. That's a different ballgame. Oregon has had the rule that one spouse can deny a search for years and it's never caused a problem in DV cases.

    Looking at it a different way, I really don't think one spouse should have the right to give away the civil rights of the other regarding search without warrant. Although I have nothing to hide, I'd be pissed if my wife told the police they could come in and shake down our house w/o my consent.
    I don't see wy the court ruling is coming as a shock. ALL consent searches are to be halted when consent is withdrawn. In this case, the consent is withdrawn right from the get go. Sure, come on in. You walk in, husband comes out from the kitchen and says "get the fuck out", you guys are really going to stick around? That's pretty dicey. Like it's been said, a man's house is his castle. There are ways to go about things when search warrant exceptions aren't applicable, and for good reason too.
    "If anything worthwhile comes of this tragedy, it should be the realization by every citizen that often the only thing that stands between them and losing everything they hold dear... is the man wearing a badge." -- Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the deaths of 4 CHP troopers in the Newhall Incident, 1970

    The opinions given in my posts DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "121Traffic" on O/R.

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting an unarmed subject
    By TheeBadOne in forum In the News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-27-07, 08:02 PM
  2. Chaining up kids in court...
    By CT209 in forum In the News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-21-07, 12:21 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-07, 09:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •