Sc: Police Can't Enter Homes

[JMHX]

Full Story

--

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's unity under new Chief Justice John Roberts was shattered Wednesday by a dispute over an old adage: A man's home is his castle.

The justices ruled 5-3 that police without a warrant cannot search a house when one resident agrees but another says no.

--

I fail to comprehend the foolish shortsightedness of this ruling. If a woman phones the police on a domestic disturbance and invites them in to protect her, only to be overruled by the abusive husband, the police must then return to the precinct and proceed to gain a warrant if they see fit. This takes time. Time is dangerous in a case such as this.

Yes, there is still probable cause, but what about in cases where evidence of abuse is present, but not enough to satisfy the legal grounds of probable cause? This takes time.

What about the legal impact of this, requiring officers and legal agencies to now devote time and money to figuring out exactly when a warrant is needed, and when an officer can assume probable cause? If an officer makes a mistake in entering a home that is now off-limits because of this ruling, the entire case is thrown out because procedure was not followed.

Thoughts?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 3/23/06 02:12 PM, JMHX wrote: Thoughts?

I honestly don't think it's going to have much affect on domestic abuse. How many arrests were made for domestic abuse made before, that didn't require a search warrant, but do now? If it's a domestic abuse case, shouldn't the evidence be the victim herself? And as far as I know, you don't have to have a search warrant to examine the victim or ask her questions if she consents.

[JMHX]

At 3/23/06 02:27 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:12 PM, JMHX wrote: Thoughts?

I honestly don't think it's going to have much affect on domestic abuse. How many arrests were made for domestic abuse made before, that didn't require a search warrant, but do now? If it's a domestic abuse case, shouldn't the evidence be the victim herself? And as far as I know, you don't have to have a search warrant to examine the victim or ask her questions if she consents.

A good deal of women are intimidated by their abusive significant other, intimidated enough to not go to the police station and give testimony. Most testimony for spousal abuse reports is done on site, and now, since a police officer must go back and seek a warrant to enter the home, the testimony must either be given down at the station or under the eyes of the abusive significant other.

The point is that if evidence is not clearly visible in an amount large enough to satisfy probable cause to enter the home without a warrant, the entire process is held up, taking up valuable time. If the wife insists it is okay for the officer to enter the home, that ought to be permission enough, especially in a domestic abuse case. For the husband or significant other to be able to say no and have that set the case back by precious days is insane.

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/23/06 02:12 PM, JMHX wrote: Thoughts?

I thought it had always been this way.

I don't want my roommates to be able to give the cops permission to search my room without a warrant.

[Memorize]

Depends. Whose house is it?

[Van-McCoy]

In some ways this ruling seems asinine, but then there are times when you don't want the police in your house because it's private property. When it comes to the life of a domestic abuse victim, I say get rid of the bureacratic bullshit and save the lady before she gets hurt.

[JMHX]

At 3/23/06 03:04 PM, -Michael- wrote: In some ways this ruling seems asinine, but then there are times when you don't want the police in your house because it's private property. When it comes to the life of a domestic abuse victim, I say get rid of the bureacratic bullshit and save the lady before she gets hurt.

Precisely. My complaint is with the blanket decision made by the Supreme Court on a situation that does not lend itself well to blanket decisions. Very few situations do.

[HighlyIllogical]

I believe that this ruling only affects searches. Domestic abuse and imminent danger constitute cause for entry.

[ReiperX]

I think its stupid, and putting another hurdle for police to have to jump in order to do their job. Its like the INS not being able to go within many miles or yards of places targeted at illegal immigrants in california, and the pressuring of stopping high speed chases in some areas of California. Makes it easier for the bad guys to get away and its rediculous.

[Elfer]

At 3/23/06 02:12 PM, JMHX wrote: I fail to comprehend the foolish shortsightedness of this ruling. If a woman phones the police on a domestic disturbance and invites them in to protect her, only to be overruled by the abusive husband, the police must then return to the precinct and proceed to gain a warrant if they see fit. This takes time. Time is dangerous in a case such as this.

In general, the police are required to enter a house on a domestic disturbance call, regardless of consent and warrants.

[Maus]

At 3/23/06 04:26 PM, Elfer wrote: In general, the police are required to enter a house on a domestic disturbance call, regardless of consent and warrants.

Not here. If the police want to survey the abode, they must ask for permission to enter. It used to be that one could say "yes" and that was all that was needed. Now only one can say "no" and they must remain outside the door.

This case came about after a domestic abuse call resulted in the offender being arrested after the spouse invited the cops in to look around, and an amount of cocaine was found.

This is a tricky area, and I echo Roberts' unease with how this may affect domestic abuse victims when the perpetrator can block immediate access to the situation. Although, I'm sure in extreme cases where the victim is visibly battered, it would make for a different circumstance, thus allowing the authorities to take swift action on the spot.

[HighlyIllogical]

Well, none of us, as far as I know, are lawyers, but I believe that any court will agree that if a police officer enters a home where neighbors or a person inside the home has reported a potential crime (domestic abuse, say) where there is imminent danger to the victim, there is no violation of the law or of civil liberties by the police officer.

I highly doubt that this will alter the handling of domestic abuse cases.

[HighlyIllogical]

According to this, the concern about this is unwarranted: "Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts argued.

"The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.

Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying police still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner is truly in danger.

"(T)his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists."

Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that "the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion that said his decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that Souter's analysis applies to cases such as this one, in which police were searching for evidence of a crime, rather than intervening in a violent dispute."

(http://www.sfgate.co..3/23/MNGSDHSGB51.DT
L)

[HighlyIllogical]

Here it is again:

"Justice Souter said the law was clear on the right of the police, despite any objection, to enter a home to protect a crime victim. But that issue "has nothing to do with the question in this case," he said...In his concurring opinion on Wednesday, Justice Breyer noted that in this case, the police were searching "solely for evidence," and domestic abuse was not at issue. While he pronounced himself satisfied by "the case-specific nature of the court's holding," he said the outcome might well be different in the context of domestic abuse, in which police entry even over one spouse's objection could be reasonable." (http://www.nytimes.c..amp;partner=homepag
e)

Clearly, if someone is in imminent danger, the cops CAN enter the house.

[RedSkunk]

... This doesn't relate to domestic abuse cases at all.

[Elfer]

At 3/23/06 05:38 PM, Maus wrote: Not here. If the police want to survey the abode, they must ask for permission to enter. It used to be that one could say "yes" and that was all that was needed. Now only one can say "no" and they must remain outside the door.

Bah. There is no justice in absolutes. I learned that from the star trek where Picard was yelling at God.

Then God was all "k"