UConn James Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Supreme Court limits cops' right to search Justice David Souter said the case could be decided based on the normal social expectations of people. No reasonable person would accept an invitation if another occupant was saying, "Stay out," he wrote for the majority. He limited the ruling: An occupant's objection counts only if he or she is at the door to voice it. That's rich, considering that last year it didn't matter to him if all of the occupants were saying "Get out!"... a city or town can confiscate (with financial restitution) said man's castle to give the property to another man so he could build glorious tax-generating buildings on it. I am with Roberts on this, especially as it applies to domestic violence cases. As he wrote, "Sharing space entails risk." If one occupant says the police can enter without a warrant, essentially a cry that the police are needed here, they should be able to. This ruling seems only to advantage a person who has an immediate reason to hide something, over the objection of a co-owner/habiter whose safety could be at risk.
Recommended Posts