General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

63. Entry for the purposes of arrest, and a search of the premises are different. In the hypo you

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 03:40 PM

Feb 2014

give, the cops would be able to enter to affect arrest, and could do a plain-view search to secure evidence and protect themselves.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

133 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: SCOTUS Decision Weakens 4th Amendment Protections [View all] cali Feb 2014 OP

Just exactly what is so fucking SamKnause Feb 2014 #1

hmmmmm liberalmike27 Feb 2014 #70

Recmmended. H2O Man Feb 2014 #2

man, is that the truth. about gd. it reads more like a gossip forum cali Feb 2014 #10

When I came H2O Man Feb 2014 #92

The kinds of posts that regularly get ignored here speaks volumes about who has come to join us. nt kelliekat44 Feb 2014 #110

I agree H2O Man Feb 2014 #111

It's at the top of General Discussion toddwv Feb 2014 #114

It wasn't when H2O Man Feb 2014 #115

sometimes you have to wait more than 11 minutes. nt awoke_in_2003 Feb 2014 #117

roflspew! demwing Feb 2014 #124

Thank you. ZombieHorde Feb 2014 #126

The OP should've specifically mentioned gender in the post title, then it would've generated TransitJohn Feb 2014 #116

k&r HappyMe Feb 2014 #3

I'm shocked! librechik Feb 2014 #4

Weaken? They are trashing G_j Feb 2014 #5

Unbelievable the shit this court gets away with. MerryBlooms Feb 2014 #6

K&R. cali, you do us all a service by posting such important news. appal_jack Feb 2014 #7

I see vital issues not being posted at all in gd cali Feb 2014 #11

Right on. Not being posted or being complete ignored. Thank you japple Feb 2014 #53

Enshrining the police state at every opportunity jsr Feb 2014 #8

Never carry more than you can eat. Erose999 Feb 2014 #9

Horrible. theHandpuppet Feb 2014 #12

Because the Legal Establishment Wanted It LarryNM Feb 2014 #118

The 4th Amendment was Stunned when the 'Good Faith' Exception was added. Wolf Frankula Feb 2014 #13

P _ L I C E S T _ T E kenny blankenship Feb 2014 #14

I guess the ProSense Feb 2014 #15

OK, you're kind of losing it. seriously. cali Feb 2014 #16

No, ProSense Feb 2014 #17

Yeah, what the fuck? progressoid Feb 2014 #59

conservatives here get very defensive about Obama's spy programs and weakening 4th amendment pragmatic_dem Feb 2014 #121

"Only Nixon can go to China" The Green Manalishi Feb 2014 #128

It's different now, besides nation keeps moving right and this site is supposed to be left pragmatic_dem Feb 2014 #132

But, life is unpredictable. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #120

Sooo.. JJChambers Feb 2014 #18

Nobody is siding with a criminal. Maedhros Feb 2014 #23

You have missed the point. tonybgood Feb 2014 #49

That's not what this decision said at all JJChambers Feb 2014 #58

Did you read it? tonybgood Feb 2014 #65

It's a little trickier than that... Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2014 #73

No, that's nonsense JJChambers Feb 2014 #74

There is a previous case, Georgia v. Randolph DefenseLawyer Feb 2014 #69

I pointed out downthread that this is a deliberate gut of Randolph...which Scalia always hated. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #91

As every good authoritarian should. n/t DefenseLawyer Feb 2014 #93

I'm surprised at Breyer on this one. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #95

I'm not. DefenseLawyer Feb 2014 #96

Mmm I think it (the 4th) is still largely intact though even after the ruling. cstanleytech Feb 2014 #104

Oh, like the police are NEVER going to abuse that alarimer Feb 2014 #107

What Is Wrong With The Police DallasNE Feb 2014 #50

Court Comes Down On Side Of "Police Investigation Efficiency" DallasNE Feb 2014 #62

Well, that's the way they'd do it in a TV drama, isn't it? kristopher Feb 2014 #81

I agree. Haven't had time to read the entire decision, but this is a limited set of circumstances. Hoyt Feb 2014 #55

shallow H2O Man Feb 2014 #90

Just more grease for the slope daleanime Feb 2014 #19

Can someone explain something? Orrex Feb 2014 #20

The police can search in that instance. What happened here though, was that Fernandez objected msanthrope Feb 2014 #27

Ah. Thanks. Orrex Feb 2014 #29

No....he was running from a gang robbery he had just committed. He ran into his apartment, msanthrope Feb 2014 #35

Then I'm still confused. Orrex Feb 2014 #52

Entry for the purposes of arrest, and a search of the premises are different. In the hypo you msanthrope Feb 2014 #63

I swear I'm not being deliberately obtuse about this, but... Orrex Feb 2014 #67

They can do a limited search without a warrant DallasNE Feb 2014 #80

Ah. Thanks again! Orrex Feb 2014 #86

No...the search you describe would be illegal. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #94

They wouldn't need a warrant to remove the blanket, depending on what they reasonably thought msanthrope Feb 2014 #89

Oh...the presence of the crying and bloody woman with a baby would give them probable cause to msanthrope Feb 2014 #88

probable cause is what is nessacary for a warrant questionseverything Feb 2014 #71

Are we "there" yet? bvar22 Feb 2014 #21

Problem is, most people refuse to look long enough to put it together. polichick Feb 2014 #72

It's a rightwing gut of Georgia v. Randolph. Scalia hated that decision...this msanthrope Feb 2014 #22

sorry, I didn't do that. You're right. I'll gladly make that change cali Feb 2014 #25

It's always interesting when the most liberal & conservative judges agree. Lurks Often Feb 2014 #24

I'll try to answer that....if you have two people present, one objects, then there is no msanthrope Feb 2014 #30

Honest question -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #33

Was the arrest a pretext to get a search allowed? Yeah...I could get that thrown. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #42

That is one of my big concerns with this ruling. It seems to invite abuse. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #45

But can today's decision extend to one person? Thor_MN Feb 2014 #56

The warantless search you described would be illegal. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #60

The ruling today hinges on having permission from a resident of the dwelling then? Thor_MN Feb 2014 #68

Reading the majority, they seem to indicate that since the removal was for a lawful msanthrope Feb 2014 #85

So change the scenario slightly quakerboy Feb 2014 #119

The police could not search your home in that instance, since they have msanthrope Feb 2014 #123

I'm Not So Sure DallasNE Feb 2014 #75

No...I'm correct..the hypo as given doesn't give a justification that would allow msanthrope Feb 2014 #82

the judge that issues the warrant mopinko Feb 2014 #32

I disagree. This is simply the court ruling correctly on something that should be common sense. Xithras Feb 2014 #26

That is an important context. randome Feb 2014 #34

FYI...the robbery wasn't against her...the domestic violence was. I think the dissent msanthrope Feb 2014 #39

I agree with you. The way I see it is . . . Erda Feb 2014 #41

LOL!!! So to get consent to search a home arrest everyone who wont give it!?!? lol... ok uponit7771 Feb 2014 #43

No, they thought it all the way through. JoeyT Feb 2014 #47

+1 uponit7771 Feb 2014 #48

No person should have the right to give away the privacy rights of an adult citizen. Laelth Feb 2014 #54

You're Entitled To Your Own Opinion DallasNE Feb 2014 #78

Scary stuff! get the red out Feb 2014 #28

K&R n/t Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #31

This really doesn't change much that I can tell Gman Feb 2014 #36

K&R ..Thanks for posting red dog 1 Feb 2014 #37

More powers for the out of control Police Militias. SoapBox Feb 2014 #38

WE NEED A 3RD PARTY!!! /sarcasm <------ cause that's needed here uponit7771 Feb 2014 #40

What the hell happened here? Breyer?? Breyer and Kennedy bought into this? WTF. Jefferson23 Feb 2014 #44

very important Kali Feb 2014 #46

"This is a dangerous decision that will be badly abused by law enforcement." Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2014 #51

We need all liberal women on the SCOTUS! AAO Feb 2014 #57

Oh what could possibly go wrong with this new decision? riderinthestorm Feb 2014 #61

K&R dorkzilla Feb 2014 #64

K & R historylovr Feb 2014 #66

It's fasicstic-ly delicious! stillwaiting Feb 2014 #76

They should have just left the apt...... Historic NY Feb 2014 #77

WTF? blackspade Feb 2014 #79

k&r one_voice Feb 2014 #83

Randolph seems to have been fairly limited: a resident who was present could prevent struggle4progress Feb 2014 #84

you mean we still had some remnant of 4th amendment rights left? nt Javaman Feb 2014 #87

So this is the SCOTUS version of "Ask your mother." npk Feb 2014 #97

Now we know WHY the SCOTUS remodeled the Court to help exclude the public. blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #98

K&R DeSwiss Feb 2014 #99

....^ 840high Feb 2014 #105

The police state The Wizard Feb 2014 #100

Question to you lawyer guys sadoldgirl Feb 2014 #101

The 4th Amendment still exists? Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #102

Justice Alito, I want access to your personal email. saidsimplesimon Feb 2014 #103

Seems similar to the NSA spying, or other government intrusion in our lives mostlyconfused Feb 2014 #106

I' don't get it... Lancero Feb 2014 #108

Yikes CFLDem Feb 2014 #109

I have dealt with Landlord and Tenant law for over 20 years, and I agree with Scalia happyslug Feb 2014 #112

wow, awesome arguments by Ginsberg. She destroys the majority opinion Vattel Feb 2014 #113

K&R n/t Michigan-Arizona Feb 2014 #122

The Roberts Court is a machine built to weakening the Fourth Amendment. Orsino Feb 2014 #125

I didn't realize we still had Fourth Amendment protections to weaken. Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2014 #127

Stolen from another site, but the post is worth reading. The Green Manalishi Feb 2014 #129

k and r for even more evidence(as if it were even needed) that we live in a police state niyad Feb 2014 #130

Hmmm....so one co-occupant can waive the rights and protections of the other co-occupant? truebrit71 Feb 2014 #131

I wonder if a sign on the door would work? Savannahmann Feb 2014 #133