Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches | Hacker News Reader

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

latimes.com

2 pointsjack-r-abbit3 comments

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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com