I’m a little hazy about todays ruling on police searches.
I’m concerned with what the definition of “occupant” is in the ruling. Does it include anyone residing at the home whether they are the owner or leasee of the property?
For instance, does a 17 year old who pays no rent while living in their parents home have the right to refuse a search of the house even though the parents are consenting? Same situation but the kid is over 18 (a legal adult). Does mearly living there give equal rights in this case?
What about a house guest you’ve invited to stay for an extended period of time?
What about home owners that have taken in a paying border who only rents 1 bedroom w/kitchen & bathroom privileges? Does that border have the right to refuse searches of anywhere in the house even if the owner is allowing it? Or just to refuse the areas in which their rent allows them access?
As soon as I read the newspaper article about the opinion I asked myself the same thing, because I have precisely that situation in a case I’m now handling. I tried to run off a copy of the opinion to see if I can find somthing that helps me, but so far I’ve only been able to find a PDF that my won’t print on my printer.
Hmm. What would happen in a different situation, where the wife alone was present and invited the police in to show her husband’s stash? The hubbie isn’t there–so is the law to just assume the husband approves? What if the husband later (quite believably) says he would never have allowed this? Should the police conduct a city-wide search to find anyone with an ownership interest to determine if there’s a consensus allowing their search? Or does only a stated objection carry any weight?
The ruling is probably going to have to have some calrification rulings in the future. There are too many questions from both the law enforcement community & the criminal defense lawyers to be answered.
My questions are about who has a right to refuse a search. Does the person have to be a legal resident of the abode (drivers license shows that’s his address, receives mail there) or are we going to slip back into common law beliefs and say if a person is staying there for X amount of time it’s their residence? My fadder in-law comes up every summer and stays with us for about a month so he can enjoy the summer festivals here in Milwaukee. Does that make him a resident with rights trumping mine?
The other thing the ruling shows is that the court is still slanted somewhat to the left, as all of the voting Justices who dissented are considered conservative.
I’m not sure that this is such a bold new frontier of law as you make it out to be. After all occupants have always had the ability to allow/deny a warentless search, so there is already a fairly large body of law that identifies what percisely qualifies one as an occupant. The only difference now is that if two or more people qualify under those previously existing deffinitions, and they differ in whether a search of should be allowed, the SCOTUS has provided criteria to determine if the search can be couducted lawfully or not.
I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. Do rulings where the “conservative” justices do not all vote the same way show that the court isn’t slanted to the left, then?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and have little factual information on which I base my opinion. I’m also looking forward to any clarifications about this from those in the know.
It seems to me that this was decided properly. After all, what part of “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” is at issue here? It’s not just a person’s residence, but all that other stuff also. And it seems to me that your rights are not being “trumped”; rather they are being given equal balance. Requiring warrants for search and seizure is a good thing.
Oh, bullshit. It seems to me that this can (and should) be discussed without the petty Republican snipes (equating Republican with conservative). At some point, I do want to read the dissents to see what their (objective) basis in law is.
So, all of a sudden a house guest has the same rights as I the home owner?
Say I want the police to search my house for [whatever], now a guy that that is just staying there as a guest is aloud to block my request?
Or does he?
And does the ruling apply only to adults?
What about a case of an 17 year old minor living in his parents home, who pays no rent, no bills, and owns none of the property at the dwelling. Now all of a sudden he has equal rights over you the occpant/property owner?
I can’t recall the last time 6 opinions were written; this not only will have to be clarified, I wouldn’t expect it to remain common law long (too many different opinions).
That one, the Court has answered to a degree, in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990). If your father in law reasonably appears to the police to have the apparent authority to consent to the search, the search will be upheld.
Allowing the search and denying it are opposite things though. In the recent case the court makes equals out of all occupants, not just the person who has control of the premises. My question is, what makes one an occupant? Is my neighbor sitting on my couch for a visit considered an occupant?
Or does the person actually have to “live” there. And what constitutes “living there”.
Does the 4 weeks my F.I.L.***** stays here make him a legal occupant?
And whatever the qualifiers are, how exactly do the police figure this out on the scene? A quick litmus test is needed.
And my questions remain about minors. Can a 17 year old deny the search over the his parents permission? What about a 14 year old?
Trust me, police, prosecuters, and defense attorneys will be discussing/debating this case for a long time!
*****I use my fadder-in-law staying here only as an example. He knows better than to get into a pissing match with me!
He has a reasonable expectation of privacy under Minessota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990). The case holds that a guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host’s home. Olson involved a warrantless arrest (the defendant was found hiding in a closet) inside a house.
Here is what the court said about the case:
The Court’s discussion in Olson, OTOH, suggests that the “social understanding” is that the host gets to decide who enters the house. Olson didn’t involve a disagreement between host and guest–the police didn’t ask to come in. So the logic of Randolph suggests that the social understanding be honored. OTOH, the Court saw Olson as a jumping off point, so maybe it will read *Olson * broadly.
The Court seemed to indicate that between children and adults, there was a relationship that provided a basis for resolving disputes: grownup wins.
I don’t see why this is such a big deal… If someone living/staying with you denies a search and you actually want one to occur, call up the police - give them probable cause for a warrant. If they don’t have probable cause, they don’t belong searching your property. Logically, this neccessarily has to include your house guests, as you cannot sign over their rights, just as they cannot sign over your’s. If you consent to a search, you are waiving the rights of your house guests, permitting the police to search through their personal belongings.
also - as a pot-stirring aside - The dissenters being ‘conservative’ doesn’t really jive. Conservatives generally stand for smaller, less-intrusive government. Or atleast they used to. I would expect a real conservative to err on the side of caution in this instance, by not allowing a warrantless search to take place when there are complications.
Here’s my confusion (from reading what I’ve been able to find of this decision and the previous decisions discussed in this one)…
If no one is at home, no search without a warrant. My rights protected.
If both occupants are home, I refuse and the other consents, no search without a warrant. My rights protected.
If only one occupant is home and consents, warrentless search. No protection for my rights.
This is especially concerning because the previous decision (US v Matlock, I think) states that the objecting occupant was “detained in a police cruiser” at the time of the search. Sounds to me like all the cops have to do (e.g., in a domestic dispute case, which I believe both of these were) is say “come sit down and talk to us” and then they can ask the other person for consent and search away.
Of course, I was surprised by this ruling - I thought they’d say that if anyone consents, then it’s OK.
Is this how things work while you are on patrol? People call the station and ask for a warrant to be issued for their own house to be searched? Amazing! Where are you a cop? I’d like a job there.
The problem is, it seems the ruling covers the entire home. So we’re not talking about just the guests personal belongings, we’re talking the entire house. Going through things like guests suitcases and guest room drawers and searching the basement where the guest had no permission to access are 2 different things.
Does inviting someone into your home give them authority over your entire property in a case of police search, even when you the main occupant & owner are there giving permission?
Of course we’re assuming that this ruling includes guests of the dwelling. The language doesn’t spell that out which is why it needs some clarification. At what point does a visitor become an occupant?
Thats not what I said. I said call up the cops to give them probable cause. Give them something to work with - something that they can generate a warrant with.
I’m not following your logic here. You’re equating having a guest say ‘no search’ and you saying ‘go ahead and search’ as ‘taking away your rights’. It is no such thing. It reinforces your and their rights. It is not your right to have your premises searched by the cops. Quite the opposite, it is your right to NOT have it searched unreasonably. The same applies to the guests. It is their right to refuse search of their belongings, and you can’t tell the police that its ok for them to search your guests - which I assume would be legitimate if you OK’d a search on your house.
Do you have any idea how the real world works in the field of law enforcement?
Cases like this usually arise from domestic disturbances. People don’t call 911 and say “my hubby is being an asshole. Get a warrant on your way over!”
Of course, once the cops are there and now have to stand around waiting for a search warrant (even though they have a home owner giving permission to search) you know what’s happening right?
