Cops Ready to Violate the Fourth Amendment in Boston

[KBCraig]

whose name was the house in?

Married couple. Joint property.

Shoot. Now I'm going to have to go look up the details of the case.

[ThePug]

whose name was the house in?

Married couple. Joint property.

Shoot. Now I'm going to have to go look up the details of the case.

Property ownership, for 4th Amendment consent purposes, doesn't trump "reasonable expectation of privacy". The property ownership might be joint (being a civil matter) but the expectation of privacy remains distinct for each individual (as a criminal matter).

[KBCraig]

Found it:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-limits-search-power/

Court limits search power
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 10:02 am

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 on Wednesday that it is unconstitutional for police without a warrant to search a home, if two occupants are present at the time and one consents but the other objects. The search may not go forward in the face of that objection, but the occupant must be present to have the objection count, the Court said in a decision written by Justice David H. Souter.

[KBCraig]

I note that the "conservative, constitutionalist" justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito) dissented in this case. Roberts' dissent was especially spurious.

[ThePug]

Eh, sounds like the ruling was pretty iffy itself. Either a person living in a house with others can consent to a search of their co-resident's dwelling or not. Establishing that ability to consent but then saying that it doesn't count if there's an objection from the other co-resident, but that the objection only counts if the objecting co-resident happens to be "in the door" (?) does sound extremely convoluted and nonsensical.

Of course the reasoning of the "conservatives" isn't any better- as usual they're the rank apologists for the police.

There are no Constitutionalists on the court- there are "liberal" authoritarian activists and "conservative" authoritarian activists.
 

[John Edward Mercier]

I think the rational being that if you are not present, the officers can not in any reality ascertain your consent/objection to the search. Nor could they know in all cases whether more than one inhabitant exists. It is rather obtuse for a constitutional ruling...

[J’raxis 270145]

If the other inhabitant objects to the search after the fact (e.g. when he returns home and finds out a search was conducted), anything seized during the search ought to become inadmissible as evidence. In practice, no one in their right mind would ever give such ex post facto consent if they know the cops have taken something to be used as evidence against them, so this would in effect prevent the police from ever conducting a successful search of a multi-person dwelling without a warrant.

Which is the point.

[John Edward Mercier]

I think that to be a very valid point.

[KBCraig]

I wonder how long until some legal beagle twists this ruling around, to say that if neither occupant is home to deny permission, they can just search anyway.

[John Edward Mercier]

That would definately violate the fourth.

[Caleb]

*gasp* 

You mean, that god-damn piece of paper, right?

[ThePug]

I wonder how long until some legal beagle twists this ruling around, to say that if neither occupant is home to deny permission, they can just search anyway.

There's precedent in the notion that "individual" rights don't exist when you're dealing with any group of two or more people, because their right to organize (or more specifically, to jointly control property) is something "granted" them by the government.

Any one who's ever run an incorporated business is familiar with the concept.

[Raineyrocks]

How about 'Nanny State wastes Taxpayer's Money'?
Has anyone thought that the parents could search the room themselves?

I know what you mean but remember the govt. is taking over parenting now so parents need the cops to do it!