Supreme Court splits on police searches (rules for the People!)

[elehhhhna]

March 22, 2006, 10:04AM
Supreme Court splits on police searches


By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today 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.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3740663.html

[MadMaddie]

1. I can only guess who the three dissenting votes were....

[RubyDuby in GA]

12. Seriously, I immediately thought the three were Thomas, Scalia and Roberts

when I heard it was a 5-3 split. Am I right?

[adigal]

2. Roberts is turning into a fascist's dream judge

just as expected on our side of the aisle.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Yep, that's why the fascists installed him.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I have to laugh how Republicans can not conceptualize how the

theory of getting tough on crime will be applied and affect them in their daily lives. The day that white supremacist groups become a known threat and will require searches of Anglo homes, you'll see Republicans reeling in shock to learn that THEY were the ones that loosened up the police powers to search their homes.

[Orrex]

3. Hey, that's good news! But I'm a little confused...

What would happen in a case of alleged domestic abuse? How might police enter if the abuser doesn't give permission?

But overall, this sounds like a fine ruling!

[elehhhhna]

4. The abuser can come out with their hands up!

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

6. It Doesn't Have To Do With The Abuse...

They wanted to SEARCH the house. They don't have that right, although I suppose they could have arrested the man, if they felt his spouse was in danger. Still would not have given them the right to search the home.

[Orrex]

9. Oh--I think I get it

So they can arrest the alleged (?) abuser, because the abuse is a crime in itself, but that doesn't give the police the authority to enter for a search otherwise?

Thanks for the clarification--I was having trouble getting my head around it.

[glitch]

8. They get a warrant. nt

[Minnesota Libra]

14. that would fall under the "probable cause", police have ALWAYS.......

.....had the right to enter a home WITHOUT warrant under certain conditions of course. Basically it says a policeman/woman can enter without warrant if "a reasonable person would think" a crime was in progress or someone is hurt. In your scenario they could enter if they had gotten a phone call for help, or something similar.

[moobu2]

15. I think that if the police have probable cause

that there’s a crime in progress, such as domestic violence or the police have good reason to believe someone’s destroying evidence of a crime and so forth, they can enter without a warrant..I'm pretty sure.

[Greeby]

5. This was decided before Scalito came on the court

If anyone was wondering

[happyslug]

7. Duplicate topic See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2182054

[eleny]

10. Roberts voting as expected

Pfui.