BREAKING: SCOTUS Decision Weakens 4th Amendment Protections

[happyslug]

112. I have dealt with Landlord and Tenant law for over 20 years, and I agree with Scalia

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Scalia maintain that Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 decided in 2006, was wrongly decided. In Randolph it was held that if two people are co tenants of housing, one of those Tenants could NOT overrule an objection to a Police Search by another co-tenant. That is a complete DISREGARD to the whole concept of co-ownership of any property. As Co-owners each co-tenant can invite whoever they want onto the property thus any co-tenant can invite whoever he or she wants onto the property. If that means one co-tenant invites the Police over the objection of the other co-Tenant that is one of the whole concept of Co-ownership. i.e an un-dividable ownership interest in the property as a whole, In the case of two co-tenants, an un-dividable half interest in the whole property. That is a basic rule when it comes to co-owning anything.

The opposite position is to adopt a position that even the Common Law rejected when it came to co-ownership of property, i.e. the real sole owner of such co-owned property is the Man of the house, and his wife while he is alive, has no interest it the property at all, including the right to invite people onto the property. As I said that was NEVER the law under the Common law, even when the Husband was entitled to 100% use of not only his own property, but his wife's property.

The dissent is trying to say, Randolph was correct, any co-owner can object to anyone being on the property. Furthermore once an objection is made, the co-owners can NEVER over rule it. If that was the case, if a co-owner said X could not come on his property, that would be true even if it is 10 years later.

The problem is THAT IS NOT PROPERTY LAW IN THE US AND HAS NEVER BEEN THE LAW OF PROPERTY UNDER THE COMMON LAW. Both Co-owners of property have the same EQUAL RIGHTS as to use of the property, including permitting anyone they want on the property.

To give a co-owner the right to object gives that co-owner the ability to prevent anyone from coming on the property, even someone who another co owner wants to come on the property just to show that person her flowers. Such absolute veto by a co owner is not workable and thus has never been the law.

The Majority just wanted to restrict Randolph to its facts, when one co owner had objected and the other gave permission for police to enter while both were present. With Scalia and Thomas's concurrence based on their opinion Randolph was wrongly decided, that was enough votes to uphold this conviction.
),