Comments on: Supremes: All Parties Must Consent to Warrantless Search

By: slickdpdx

slickdpdx — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:09:47 +0000

Surely she has a right to invite others, even the police, to enter, use or examine her property.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:28:45 +0000

slickdpdx: I don't think your examples are parallel. The 4th Amendment protects persons from warrantless searches; that's not a right that other persons can abrograte. There is no similar protection, so far as I'm aware, to ensure one's roommate does not invite guests or your wife doesn't lend out your car.

By: slickdpdx

slickdpdx — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:24:51 +0000

Consistently emphasized is the right of the tenant who does not consent. Consistently overlooked is the right of the consenting tenant. (At least you mentioned she was enraged - giving an equitable but not legal reason to disregard HER right to control the property.)
One other point: Where does this line of thinking take you in trespass or theft cases? If one owner lets me in the premises or lets me use the car can the other successfully accuse me of theft or trespass? That doesn't seem right.

By: Mythilt

Mythilt — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:46:09 +0000

My prediction...the moonbats will use this as another 'impeach Bush' rally point with regards to the NSA wiretaps.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:18:31 +0000

Matt: Correctamundo.

By: Matt Johnston

Matt Johnston — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:11:00 +0000

The obvious solution to the problem would be to get a warrant!! Getting a warrant on an emergency basis is not difficult and the police can secure the area until the warrant arrives. Thus if the police are faced with a consent/no-consent warrantless search--just get a damn warrant!!!!!!!

By: The Cultural Report

The Cultural Report — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:51:24 +0000

SCOTUS CONSIDERS CONSENT TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES...

If law enforcement officers have a reasonable belief that someone is in danger, they will still have the right to enter anywhere they need to. The issue being decided in this case is the admissibility of evidence seized during a search to which only on...

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:37:22 +0000

Roberts would permit one person, say a spouse, give consent to a warrantless search even if the other present party, say the other spouse, objected. The majority would not.

By: verve

verve — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:51:47 +0000

I'm a bit confused by your post and the third comment. The title of the post implies that both parties must consent, but in your first paragraph you say that an objection only counts if the objector is present at the door. From your quote of Roberts' dissent, it sounds like he's saying that is hogwash, both parties must consent, period. It sounds to me that Roberts' interpretation provides greater safeguard to liberty, not the other way around as the third commenter suggests.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:54:14 +0000

It's just a shame that the so called "originalists" thought otherwise! It was clear in the hearings for both Roberts and Alito that they tend to side with the government/police position on these matters. Maybe you finally see what some of us were worried about with these guys. Then again, maybe not.

Be careful what you wish for, they may be coming for you next...

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:25:56 +0000

Supreme Court Backs Searches in Some Cases

...

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one reside...

By: floyd

floyd — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:08:54 +0000

"presuption" should have read "presumption", sorry

By: floyd

floyd — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:06:21 +0000

does a warrant still require that which is to be searched for to be specified? how would that apply in a warrantless search circumstance?why would anyone give voluntary blanket search permission the government?does entry alone effectively reduce private property to the status of plain public view? and now for my comment; be aware that ounce in the "justice system", there is no cheap or easy way out. "presuption of innocence" is the stuff of theory or fantasy in the real world.

By: Supreme Court Limits Third Party Consent Searches » OTB News

Supreme Court Limits Third Party Consent Searches » OTB News — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:11:20 +0000

[...] Supremes: All Parties Must Consent to Warrantless Search [...]

By: The Jawa Report v3.0 Beta

The Jawa Report v3.0 Beta — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Just so you know, this is what we are up against if the fit ever hit the shan with Iran. Can you blame them for wanting to cover their faces? [IMG] More from Iran.... [IMG] Al Qaeda tank with female jihadi and bin Laden concubine. [IMG] --------Linked to Joyner's daily linkfest. « Hide "What Country Has the Hottest Military Babes?"