
Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches - jack-r-abbit
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story
======
jack-r-abbit
I know this has potential for abuse but I think it kind of makes sense. They
still can't enter without a search warrant if no one is home. They have always
been able to search your home without a warrant IF you give consent. This
tricky situation where two occupants disagree on that consent is all we are
talking about here. There are many rules that have potential for abuse but
don't get abused. Or when they do get abused, usually someone gets called out
for it. If police start to arrest the people that don't consent without a
proper cause, a pattern will emerge. So I'm not particularly up in arms about
this one.

~~~
bediger4000
It's just another instance of the Supreme Court shaving the (fairly clear and
simple) wording of the 4th Amendment even thinner.

 _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized._

So, now your roomie (or whatever) can tell a cop that they can search. The
reasonably clear 4th Amendment has come to mean something entirely different
in the hands of the legal profession. Who does this benefit? Lawyers and law
enforcement, mostly. It's unmannerly for me to search my wife's purse without
asking her and getting consent. Why should the cops have this special
dispensation from mannerliness, and reasonable behavior?

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I get what you are saying but rarely are things ever _clear and simple_. There
is always an out. Something open to interpretation. In this case, the word
_unreasonable_ is it for me. It is subjective. The court decided in this
particular arrest/search that it was reasonable for the one resident to
consent to the search while the other resident was not there. It is still
unclear to me who actually has the right to consent. I would guess the person
has to actually live there at least (and not just some party guest or
something). It could go further and be limited to only those that are
recognized residents (like only those on a lease/deed). I would assume that if
my minor child was home alone, their consent would not be valid. I guess there
is still plenty of wording to shave off in future cases.

