Police DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home

Supreme Court Rules Police DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home



Much to the surprise of the general public, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanded the ability of law enforcement to search without warrants.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court which ruled 6 to 3 that “when occupants of a residents disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present,” the Washington Post reported. “That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector,” the court added.

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote.

“Alito said there was no need for officers to obtain a warrant,” the Post explained. “When they arrived the first time, having followed Fernandez from the scene of a robbery, Rojas answered the door crying, with a bump on her nose and blood on her hands and shirt.”

Alito noted that “denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence. Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent.”

The case in question stemmed from a 2009 arrest and search related to a robbery in Los Angeles.

What happened when police arrived was a girlfriend of an occupant allowed them to access the apartment, even though her boyfriend had refused to consent to the search.

But later, the girlfriend said she felt intimidated and only consented to the search because of police intimidation. This all happened after law enforcement had been told that they would not be given permission to search. The police persisted, and she caved to their request.

Initially, it was Roxanne Rojas who opened the door, but Walter Fernandez then quickly told officers they had to leave if they did not have a warrant, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights,” Fernandez yelled at them from inside the apartment.

According to court records, Fernandez was shortly thereafter arrested in connection with the robbery the police were investigating. It was after they had taken him away that they returned, an hour later, and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas’ consent because Fernandez was not there.

Even though they lacked the probable cause to obtain a warrant or enter without one legally, they had arrested him, and then returned to obtain the bullied consent from Rojas, after Fernandez refused.

Once inside, they found a shotgun and what they deemed “gang-related materials.”

But in a case eight years before that, the Supreme Court ruled that the refusal should have once and for all prohibited the police from entering, or even returning and pressing the issue.

“A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search” of his home “s dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,” the court had then determined.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, along with Elena Kagan penned the dissenting opinion in this ruling. They said that the decision is nothing short of an erosion of the Fourth Amendment, giving police a disturbing degree of power.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg said, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.”

She added that the ruling, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

Source

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court which ruled 6 to 3 that “when occupants of a residents disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present,” the Washington Post reported.

“That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector,” the court added.

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote.

the fact that I am no longer physically present to refuse them permission to search the premises does not mean that my refusal has been withdrawn.

That's quite literally the opposite of what they just said.

That's quite literally the opposite of what they just said.

But it seems ripe to be abused to hell and back.

But still. One would think if they've been lawfully detained and need to search the home, a warrant would be easy to come by.

Police: Hands up! Don't move!!
Homeowner: Wtf!? What did I do officer??
Police: We heard you are hording illegal narcotics in your home!
Homeowner: But...I don't use drugs! Also don't you need a Search Warrant to search my house?!
Police: Don't need those anymore. Now sit down and stfu!
*Officer searches the house*
Police: Finally found the kitchen...Holy f**k! All this food talk about a pack rat!
*10 mins later*
Police: Okay, we didn't find any. Sorry for the trouble. *berps*
Police: That will be all. *berps again* Stay out of trouble sir!
Homeowner: Wtf was that about anyway? *secs later* OMFG! WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL MY FOOD!?! They f**in robbed me!
*Police in cop car*
Police: Haha! Sucker!

So basically, if you live alone and you get arrested then they no longer need a warrant to search your house? And to further that, if they wish to search your home they could come to your door, arrest you, and then search your home?

“That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector,” the court added.

Thing is, if they remove you from the premises via an unlawful detainment then intimidate or otherwise coerce a roommate or spouse into letting them search the home, even if you voiced your objection before they unlawfully detained you, they still have the right to search your home. And, what's more, they can use anything they find as evidence.

IMO, any good lawyer should be able to argue once you were unlawfully detained, everything else is fruit of the poisonous tree. If the arrest holds up, well looks like you're ***out of luck.

Just because an arrest, or search was unlawful and in the process of that they found evidence to said crime. Does not mean it still didn't happen. They're not going to wave off 10 kilos of Heroin under your kitchen sink because you was unlawfully detained...

Yeah actually they will. Key word would be unlawful.

Just like a confession gained through beating someone isn't admissible. Different level of unlawful, but still unlawful.

What's to stop them from detaining someone under suspicion of a crime or claiming they match the description of someone who is wanted and dragging them in only to release them without charges after they've searched their house in their absence? Or deciding not to press charges for whatever bunk they made up and charging them with whatever they found in the house?

They could stop you for "swerving" (being on the road around last call) then arrest them for something they notice in the car while conducting a sobriety test. I realize that cars and homes are different legally, I'm just curious if you see anything in this decision that would keep some from interpreting the law that way?

Few things. For one there is "Illegal search and seizure" laws which means, if there is no PROBABLE CAUSE "allows a search without a warrant" or a judge didn't sign off on said warrant it becomes Illegal Seizure. So this is true if you give probable cause to a search.

Remember, first impressions and keeping up the appearance is your best friend.

As the text indicates and we have repeatedly affirmed, “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.’” Riley v. California, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014)…To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.”

...

Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law.

...

Contrary to the suggestion of Heien and amici, our decision does not discourage officers from learning the law. The Fourth Amendment tolerates only reasonable mistakes, and those mistakes—whether of fact or of law— must be objectively reasonable. . . . Thus, an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty bound to enforce.

....

Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does not mean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop.

What's to stop them from detaining someone under suspicion of a crime or claiming they match the description of someone who is wanted and dragging them in only to release them without charges after they've searched their house in their absence? Or deciding not to press charges for whatever bunk they made up and charging them with whatever they found in the house?

They could stop you for "swerving" (being on the road around last call) then arrest them for something they notice in the car while conducting a sobriety test. I realize that cars and homes are different legally, I'm just curious if you see anything in this decision that would keep some from interpreting the law that way?

Reads to me like if you have reasonable cause that a suspect is inside a private property but the home owner is present and refusing you access, you now have the lawful power to enter that property.