Another Day, Another Civil Liberty Lost

[Virgil Showlion]

I was originally going to devote a thread to the unbelievably nutty conspiracy theory of governments spying on citizens through webcams... which turns out to be true.

But instead I'm going to focus on this story, about a recent SCOTUS decision to allow warrantless searches.

It's an interesting development for a few reasons. Firstly, because the specific case on which the ruling is based involves a rather nasty individual, which makes separating the precedent from the immediate good of the ruling particularly difficult. Secondly, because the SCOTUS was split 6-3 on the decision along gender lines, and the minority opinion does not mince words (i.e. "Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” [SCJ] Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.") Thirdly, because the current ruling overturns an existing precedent. And finally, because it doesn't take a SCJ to see how the ruling could easily be misapplied.

I realize P&M has become the land of the collective yawn when it comes to the erosion of non-gay civil liberties, but I'm hoping that there's at least one or two souls out there who'll find this latest ruling concerning.

[Deleted]

SF does. 

[Value Buy]

It seems as long as someone (anyone) is behind the door, and says yes, to the search, the police can enter, even if the original suspect said no.

I am surprised this court said yes.

Sounds like an old episode of Law and Order where the detective turns to the other detective after knocking on the door, "did you here that?" I think someone is in trouble" when in actuality they heard nothing, and break the door down 

[billisonboard]

I side with the minority decision in this case. There was no need to do a search on the domestic violence charge the man was arrested on and a warrant could have been obtained before the search for robbery evidence. Can police just haul out people until they get someone to consent? Yes, a troubling ruling.

[EVT1]

But not surprising- the conservatives on the court have always been about increasing police (and corporate) power over individuals.  They apparently subscribe to the notion that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

[EVT1]

And just look at their twisted logic:

     Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the written consent form signed by the apartment co-tenant, Roxanne Rojas, made the search legitimate. If the court had not ruled for the government, lawful occupants would be prevented from inviting the police into their homes to conduct searches in similar situations, Alito said.

     "Any other rule would trample on the rights of the occupant who is willing to consent," he added.


So the right for one occupant to allow a police search is greater than the other occupant's right to not allow one.   Really?!?!  Oh no- my right to be searched has been trampled   Thanks for that gem Scalito.

Damn- I didn't know the 4th amendment was the right to be searched- learn something new every day

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 28, 2014 10:31:34 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

It seems as long as someone (anyone) is behind the door, and says yes, to the search, the police can enter, even if the original suspect said no.

I am surprised this court said yes.

Precisely, and it goes directly against the 2006 ruling.

The police knew that the man had refused to allow them into his house without a warrant. So they arrest him, get him out of the way, and ask his live-in girlfriend instead. Instant workaround.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 28, 2014 10:16:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I was originally going to devote a thread to the unbelievably nutty conspiracy theory of governments spying on citizens through webcams... which turns out to be true.

But instead I'm going to focus on this story, about a recent SCOTUS decision to allow warrantless searches.

It's an interesting development for a few reasons. Firstly, because the specific case on which the ruling is based involves a rather nasty individual, which makes separating the precedent from the immediate good of the ruling particularly difficult. Secondly, because the SCOTUS was split 6-3 on the decision along gender lines, and the minority opinion does not mince words (i.e. "Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” [SCJ] Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.") Thirdly, because the current ruling overturns an existing precedent. And finally, because it doesn't take a SCJ to see how the ruling could easily be misapplied.

I realize P&M has become the land of the collective yawn when it comes to the erosion of non-gay civil liberties, but I'm hoping that there's at least one or two souls out there who'll find this latest ruling concerning.

you are full of sawdust Virgil.  i have been consistently outspoken in condemning warrantless searches.

[Virgil Showlion]

Officer: "Step aside, sir. We're here to search your house."

Father: "No way. You need a warrant for that."

Officer: "You're under arrest for stunting. Into the cruiser you go. Now, you ma'am, do we have your permission to search the house?"

Mother: "N... No, officer. Not until you have a warrant."

Officer: "You're under arrest for assaulting an officer. Into the cruiser you go. Now, you in the maid's outfit: do we have your permission to search the house?"

Maid: "S... Si senor. I don't want any trouble."

Officer: "Finally! ... Aha! A baggie of drugs in his underwear drawer. This whole family's going away for three years. Better charge the maid too. No way she didn't see this while cleaning."

SCJ Alito and 5 Other Justices: "Another day, another injustice righted. "

[workpublic]

the answer to this is to not answer or open the door.

"nobody home but us chickens"

[grits]

The current court is made up of 4 conservatives, 1 moderate, and 4 liberals. How in the world they got the moderate and liberal to sign off on this is beyond me.

It is just another case of the ever increasing tyranny of the government. The police are supposed to be our employees working to protect us. If you want to see more, go to the Rutherford Institute's website, and what you read about the police situation could send chills down your spine.

[Lizard King]

Mar 2, 2014 11:55:35 GMT -5 workpublic said:

the answer to this is to not answer or open the door.

"nobody home but us chickens"

Then the cops throw bricks at your window until they find one broken.

"Exigent circumstances."

[haapai]

I find the ruling terrifying.  I've been making a list of what cops would likely seize if they ever managed to conduct a warrentless search of my extremely law-abiding parents' home.  Without a warrant defining the scope of the search, it would be very easy for them to grab every bit of cash in the house, every computer, every gun, and probably the ivory and the silverware. 

We wouldn't get that stuff back for years, if at all.  It's all legally obtained and owned, but proving that would be very difficult. 

An 18-year old me would have easily consented to such a search, especially if I'd just seen my mostly deaf father arrested on meritless charges.