Supreme Court rules in favor of police in home searches without objector present

[str8.2.bbbj]

People bag on Anarchists, but this is what governments do. They steal everything.

The only "liberty" is self governance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...b28_story.html

[MooneyFlyer]

Go play in the Politics Forum . . . you'll love it there.

[TexTushHog]

J. Bryer joining in the majority opinion is disappointing. Other than that, no much is surprising here.

[dmcleod]

The facts of the case were that the guy was asked if the police could search the house. He said no. He was still arrested because they had probable cause. They came back after he was in jail and his girlfriend agreed to let them in.

So here's how it works.

Two people in the house, neither wants cops to search, no search without a warrant.

Two people in the house, one refuses search, no search without a warrant.

Two people, one in the house, one not in the house, neither wants cops to search, no search without a warrant.

Two people, one in the house, one not in the house, one in house allows cops to search, one not in house says no search without a warrant. Search without warrant is allowed. This is the ruling.

One person in the house, allows cops to search, search without a warrant is allowed. That's what the justices say the situation was the equivalent of here.

Frankly I'm curious about the three justices who dissented. Do they believe the absent person should override the present person? On what authority? Is it just because the wishes of this resident were known? Or because presumably, if he hadn't been arrested, he would have been able to stop the search, and that should be taken into consideration?

If I posted a sign, similar to a no soliciting sign, saying no searches without my permission, even if I'm not there, and my captive sex slave opens the door and begs the cops to come in and rescue the other five chained in the basement, is that allowed by the logic of the dissenters? They know I don't want them there. They're supposed to go away if the owner doesn't want them there and they don't have a warrant.

That's an exaggeration of course. Cops don't need a warrant if they reasonably believe someone inside is in danger or if they have clear evidence(the naughty slave who opened the door) of a felony in plain sight from the doorway.

Plus I only have four sex slaves in the basement, one of them got away recently.

[ibupro01]

Originally Posted by dmcleod

That's an exaggeration of course. Cops don't need a warrant if they reasonably believe someone inside is in danger or if they have clear evidence(the naughty slave who opened the door) of a felony in plain sight from the doorway.

If they would have had this from the beginning they would have gone in at the time they arrested him.

2nd I did not realize that I liked str8 until now.