How long will this last? What are the chances that similar decisions will come down elsewhere in the US?
To help things along…
Consider this possibility: you’re living in an apartment complex, and it turns out that your next door neighbor is an active criminal who was being watched or suspected by the cops.
What would your neighbor have to be doing in order for you to feel that the cops would be justified to search his/her residence without a warrant?
Is that a line that you feel comfortable empowering the police to draw for you?
The news reports are not accurately reporting what the decision says. There’s another thread going on this, and it contains an accurate summary by Hamlet on what the opinion actually says:
As far as I understand it this is just a ruling saying that the police can look around an area they have been allowed into by the owner of said area. In this case in particular the police were invited into the home.
If we have it as commonly accepted procedure (and it is) that a police officer can enter a home without a warrant as long as he is given permission by a resident, it also only makes sense the officer can look around to make sure there isn’t something laying around that is an overt threat to said officer.
The very issue presented in this case - consent - is a third reason to permit a warrantless search.
Search incident to arrest – the police are permitted to search the immediate area surrounding the arrestee.
Community caretaker exception - the police are not initially acting in their role as law enforcement officers, but as community caretakers. If a neighbor calls the police and tells them that nice Mrs. Smith hasn’t been heard from in several days, and she was recovering from hip surgery, the police may enter her home to check on her health.
These are off the top of my head, and I’m not sure the list is complete even now.
Or, to make it apropos of this case, you could mention consent, which the police officers had in this case, and protective sweeps, which the Supreme Court allowed in Buie.
So let’s say that Mrs. Smith has been taking the edge off of her hip pain with a few bong hits while keeping to herself and watching a stack of DVDs from the comfort of her couch.
What, if anything, are the officers empowered to do when they find her stash and paraphernalia on the coffee table?
Typically, the officers can’t just barge in - they will knock, call on the phone, bang on windows. If these fail to indicate that the occupant is all right, they may enter. Having entered, if they see contraband in plain view, they may use that fact as the basis for a warrant, arrest Mrs. Smith, or issue Mrs. Smith a summons.
It’s important to note that their motive in initially entering the house is or paramount importance. If they were entering because they had a tip that Mrs. Smith was smoking a bowl or two every night, their entry is illegal and the evidence inadmissible. If they entered because they were trying to help a person in medical distress, the entry is legal and the evidence admissible.
This consent thing, young people, is why, when the nice policeman who has just stopped you because you have a tail light that is not working asks if it is OK to search your car, you say directly and plainly NO.
If the police officer has a good reason to search he will not ask for permission. The policeman will not think badly of you because you don’t agree to a fishing expedition. He already thinks badly of you.
WHOOSH…sorry it was an irresistable impulse. But seriously Spavined and Bricker know what they are talking about and you youngsters should not be so quick to dissmiss them.
Good point. It was very wrong of Spavined Gelding to say that all drivers with broken taillights are drug smugglers. I am quite surprised at this flight of fancy from an otherwise seasoned poster who is well-acquainted with the…
Oh, wait. Spavined Gelding said no such thing. Nor did he impute such a view to anyone else.
Spavined Gelding is right. If the nice policeman only pulled you over to let you know your taillight was busted, he’d just tell you “Hey, your taillight is busted” and then send you on your merry way. If a cop tells you your taillight’s broken and then goes on to ask you if you’d mind if he searches your car, he’s only asking your permission to perform a search because he thinks you’re doing something illegal (and the stop doesn’t meet the legal requirements to allow him to conduct a valid warrentless search). He’s looking for a reason to throw your ass in jail. Why help him find one?
Maybe if you let that cop search your car, he won’t find anything. That may in fact be the most likely possibility. But I can guarentee you he won’t find anything if you don’t allow him to search it in the first place. Don’t place yourself in unnecessary risk when dealing with the police, unless you actually want to find yourself in a jail cell. Tell him “NO” and make him get a search warrant.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just curious. If you know there’s nothing illegal in your car, is there any harm in letting the cop waste his time on a fruitless search (and thus maybe preventing him from further fishing)? I think I’d probably say “no” out of principle, but I don’t see how saying “yes” would open me up to risk.
Although, I guess maybe I’m being too naive… the cop could always plant something, I guess.
I am upset by the powers we have granted to the police, but there is nothing I can do about it. Given that the result will be the same in any case I wonder why Artemis would say
It seems fairly clear that if a cop wants to search your car he is going to. Warrant or no warrant. If you have contraband in your vehicle you are going to jail. (to be clear I do not agree with all the things that are considered to be contraband)
No. But telling the police officer, “Sure, go ahead” when he asks you if it’s OK with you if he checks out your car after he’s pulled you over and told you about your busted taillight IS consenting to a search - and anything he finds (or if he’s corrupt, plants) in the course of that search will be legally vaild evidence against you in court. So don’t do it.