Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
73. It's a little trickier than that...
Tue Feb 25, 2014, 04:00 PM
Feb 2014

They wanted to search his apartment on the robbery complaint, and the suspect refused. While police were at the apartment, they found his girlfriend, who appeared to have been the victim of a beating at the hands of the suspect. He was taken in for domestic abuse. While in custody, the girlfriend subsequently gave police permission to search the apartment for evidence regarding the robbery. It wasn't like police arrested the guy just to get him out of the way -- there was a legitimate complaint of domestic abuse to be considered.

All that being said, since the suspect was in custody (and subsequently charged in the robbery as well), there was ample time to get a proper search warrant -- and certainly no judge would have denied it. All that being said, I'm not sure what sort of broad legal precedent is being set here. Police already have the right to search all "common areas" of an apartment if one roommate agrees to the search. In this case, we can assume that the two were co-habitating and so all areas of the apartment would have been considered common areas. So I'm not sure if there's any new ground being broken here.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: SCOTUS Decisio...»Reply #73