SCOTUS Rules Cops DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home
In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police donât need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.
âInstead of adhering to the warrant requirement,â Ginsburg wrote, âtodayâs decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.â Tuesdayâs ruling, she added, âshrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.â
Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the manâs refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorities from entering.
âA physically present inhabitantâs express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,â the majority ruled in that case.
The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrateâs approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the âvery coreâ of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, reports the LA Times.
According to the AP, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the courtâs 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
âWe therefore hold that 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,â Alito said.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/suprâŚ