The "freedom" loving conservatives on the Supreme Court have struck again.
Everytime I hear a conservative caterwauling about "freedom", I have an overwhelming compulsion to thrust my arm down their throat and pull out their larynx.
He's saying F*** the Constitution, Cops can do whatever they want. This group of Supreme's has been the worst.
So don't live with people you don't trust?
Don't complain. Here in the Netherlands they just passed a law where the police doesn't even require a search warrant anymore if they expect you might have an illegal alien in your house. The only thing they aren't allowed to do is break down walls to look behind them, which means that it's a pretty hollow law to begin with. They can bother you any time they want, but those really wanting to hide something can still do so.
"So don't be gay"?
So if your not home and police come by and one of your kids (who may not understand how the law works) gives them consent to come into your home when your not there is allowable now.. wow.
This merely provides a person with the right to have police assistance even if their abuser objects. Not really as terrible as people make it out to be.
The "freedom" loving conservatives on the Supreme Court have struck again.
Everytime I hear a conservative caterwauling about "freedom", I have an overwhelming compulsion to thrust my arm down their throat and pull out their larynx.
lol +1well if my wife has child sex workers locked up in the basement, i want to know about it.
Edit: That came out wrong
Aid her or, you know, shoot her. If she's an immediate threat, I mean, such as holding a hair dryer, a Wiimote, another sort of remote, or black.This, exactly this.
"Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case."
Girl calls the cops because her boyfriend is beating her.
Cops show up, boyfriend says "nope, you can't come in"
Girl says "no ignore him, please come in and help I called you for a reason"
Thanks to the ruling, cops can come in and aid the girl.
Aid her or, you know, shoot her. If she's an immediate threat, I mean, such as holding a hair dryer, a Wiimote, another sort of remote, or black.
But cattiness aside, I agree with your post.
Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story
Another nail in the coffin.
He's saying F*** the Constitution, Cops can do whatever they want. This group of Supreme's has been the worst.
What are you talking about? It just says they only need one resident's consent to search the place, not everyone's. Cops aren't "doing whatever they want."
One resident, or one occupant? Who is able to give consent? What's the definition of an occupant, vs a resident?
This, exactly this.
"Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case."
Girl calls the cops because her boyfriend is beating her.
Cops show up, boyfriend says "nope, you can't come in"
Girl says "no ignore him, please come in and help I called you for a reason"
Thanks to the ruling, cops can come in and aid the girl.
How does this ruling change from the previous caselaw that already said you could search if you obtained consent? The ruling, previously, stated that a resident could give you legal consent to search premises inside the home they had reasonable access to...like their bedroom, family room, kitchen, bathroom.
BUT..if there was a roomates room that he was not allowed to go into or was usually locked, police would need THAT person's consent as well in order to get in...or a search warrant if consent cannot be obtained.
"She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday's opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was "physically present" to object.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uVbw2VaA
"
Ahh...so it doesn't really change anything lol.
Nope, any object can trigger "He's coming right at us, Ned!" Only hope when faced with cops is to remain very, very still until issued specific orders, then very slowly do as ordered. Otherwise one faces a very real threat of being shot. (I should add that I can also see the cop's side, which is why I will never be a cop.)Did you miss the recent case where it was a 70 year old man reaching for a cane?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...97852e-9f3d-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html
What are you talking about? It just says they only need one resident's consent to search the place, not everyone's. Cops aren't "doing whatever they want."
Fuck the Netherlands. Americans could give a shit about your laws and practices.
The main thread of concern is what's going on here in the US. Fuck a lot of law enforcement and fed govt and whoever else thinks they have the right to search my property without my say so (or a search warrant). They better have a damn good reason to search my shit, other than some NSA bullshit spy-evidence or they will get an ass full of brass. That's my right as an American citizen.