# SCOTUS ruling \[searches when owners disagree Re police entry\] \[ed. title\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491 "2006-03-22T22:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/1 "2006-03-22T22:05:39Z")
I’m a little hazy about todays ruling on police [searches](http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/22/ap2614742.html). 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? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/2 "2006-03-22T22:10:48Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > I’m a little hazy about todays ruling on police [searches](http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/22/ap2614742.html)What about a house guest you’ve invited to stay for an extended period of time? 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. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/3 "2006-03-22T22:13:39Z")
Oh, yeah – the links to the opinions are here: [http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/03/opinions\_in\_geo.html](http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/03/opinions_in_geo.html) ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/4 "2006-03-24T01:00:07Z")
Sorry, but this ruling is too important to let die. I’d like to hear from other police types or the legal eagles on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/5 "2006-03-24T01:47:19Z")
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? Interesting case. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/6 "2006-03-24T02:07:00Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/7 "2006-03-24T06:25:58Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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? 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. > [@](#): > > 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 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? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/8 "2006-03-24T13:30:13Z")
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. > [@pkbites](#): > > 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? 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/9 "2006-03-24T18:39:41Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > And it seems to me that your rights are not being “trumped”; rather they are being given equal balance. 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? These are things I’d like the court to clarify. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/10 "2006-03-24T18:41:34Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > staying there as a guest is aloud to block my request? And he’s not allowed to spell correctly either!:smack: ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/11 "2006-03-24T18:49:11Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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. From the article: > [@](#): > > In all, the eight members who participated in the case wrote six different opinions, swapping barbs. 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). ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/12 "2006-03-24T18:53:26Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/13 "2006-03-24T19:19:46Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > 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!😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/14 "2006-03-24T19:46:15Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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? He has a reasonable expectation of privacy under [Minessota v. Olson](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=495&invol=91), 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: > [@](#): > > Although we have not dealt directly with the reasonableness of police entry in reliance on consent by one occupant subject to immediate challenge by another, we took a step toward the issue in an earlier case dealing with the Fourth Amendment rights of a social guest arrested at premises the police entered without a warrant or the benefit of any exception to the warrant requirement. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91 (1990), held that overnight houseguests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their temporary quarters because “it is unlikely that [the host] will admit someone who wants to see or meet with the guest over the objection of the guest,” id., at 99. If that customary expectation of courtesy or deference is a foundation of Fourth Amendment rights of a houseguest, it presumably should follow that an inhabitant of shared premises may claim at least as much, and it turns out that the co-inhabitant naturally has an even stronger claim. > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/547/103.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since 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. > [@](#): > > 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? The Court seemed to indicate that between children and adults, there was a relationship that provided a basis for resolving disputes: grownup wins. > [@](#): > > The visitor’s reticence without some such good reason would show not timidity but a realization that when people living together disagree over the use of their common quarters, a resolution must come through voluntary accommodation, not by appeals to authority. Unless the people living together fall within some recognized hierarchy, like a household of parent and child or barracks housing military personnel of different grades, there is no societal understanding of superior and inferior, ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/15 "2006-03-24T19:50:03Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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!😉 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. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/16 "2006-03-24T20:08:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/17 "2006-03-24T20:26:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/18 "2006-03-24T20:33:19Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > 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. 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?** ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/19 "2006-03-24T21:38:28Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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?** 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. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491/20 "2006-03-24T23:26:29Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > 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. 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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-ruling-searches-when-owners-disagree-re-police-entry-ed-title/349491.md?page=2)