home

Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occupants Disagree

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 10:12:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The police want to search a house but they don't have a warrant. They ask the occupants for consent to search. One says yes but the other says no. Can the police search?

In Connecticut, the state supreme court said "no" in a decision released yesterday.

The court ruled 3-2 that opposition to a search by one resident invalidates permission granted by another, which is contrary to most case law on the issue nationwide. Defense lawyers predict the ruling will be troublesome for police, and could apply not only to attempted searches of homes but also to searches of businesses and cars with several occupants.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the same issue next month.

"No" is the right answer, because one occupant shouldn't be permitted to overrule the privacy rights of another occupant. People frequently don't understand that they have the right to say "no," and one person's misunderstanding of the law, or fear of the police, shouldn't trump another person's right to withhold consent. And there's nothing wrong with requiring the police to get a warrant if they want to search a home.

The U.S. Supreme Court may, of course, see things differently. The Connecticut court based its decision on the state constitution, however, so a different outcome in the U.S. Supreme Court will have no impact on the Connecticut decision.

The majority opinion is here (pdf).

< Administration Frustrated in Efforts to Thwart Anti-Torture Law | Kidnapped Lawyer in Saddam Trial Found Dead >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occupants Disagree | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    Exactly, flip that statement and works for my argument too. Anything private to the individual who does not consent would be off limits, but common areas where there is dual access could be searched.
    Rule in favor of freedom. If one wishes a residence searched and one does not, the burden needs to lie on the state to produce a warramt. Now I know tattling on your roomie ("Please search my home") makes your job easier Patrick, but come on... These days it is sooooooooooo easy to get warrants, why even bother asking?

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:14 PM EST
    Rises some interesting issues in a Domestic Violence case. If the wife consents to a search of the home for evidence of DV can the husband then deny the search request? Puts her in a dangerous position. Not sure what the solution is but it raises interesting issues, no?

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#2)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:14 PM EST
    TChris has it exactly right. The correct answer is "no." How can someone else waive MY constitutional rights? It just doesn't make sense. Regarding boo's domestic violence case. The police can always step in to stop violence, or help the battered spouse leave, etc. But if they need to search for evidence and they don't have permission, they get a search warrant. That's the way the constitution is written.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#3)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    In Florida, if the cop actually witnesses an act of DV, it is "exigent circumstances" and he does not need a warrant.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    Excellent ruling and right on the money. That this is NOT the norm nationwide speaks volumes about where we are as a society today. It shall be interesting to see the contortions the USSC engages in to avoid a similar result.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    In California for DV cases, you only need probable cause. This ruling will have little effect on that. Exigent circumstances has always been exception to the law. As to the other arguments, if I want to the police to search my home, isn't that my right? Why should someone else get to stop me from exercising my rights? My guess is you'll see this decision overturned somewhere down the line.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    As to the other arguments, if I want to the police to search my home, isn't that my right? Why should someone else get to stop me from exercising my rights?
    simply put patrick, your rights stop where mine begin. that is a basic premise of the constitution. put another way, why should you be able to waive my rights? as i read it, this would only apply in the case of a resident, not someone merely visiting. the distinction is critical. a resident has an "ownership" interest, carrying many legal rights and obligations, a visitor doesn't. a resident can be either an owner, or a lessee. the same would apply in the car example: only the owner of the vehicle, or a designated agent, has the right to determine what happens to that vehicle, and only the owner is held responsible for that vehicle. the same logic would apply to any business: if i'm standing in line at mcd's, waiting to buy my "heart attack on a bun" burger, i have no ownership interest in that property, and the police don't have to take my rights into consideration, in order to do a search of it. i don't believe, under this opinion, that an employee does either. the dissent's "logic" was tortured, at best, disingeneous at worst. i wish people would stop using bork as the holy grail of "original intent", since he has a clearly demonstrated capacity, almost unique in law, to have not the slightest clue what the author's "original intent" actually was. this is a man who, in spite of the obvious, can't seem to locate a right to personal privacy in the constitution. he should be ignored.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    As to the other arguments, if I want to the police to search my home, isn't that my right? Why should someone else get to stop me from exercising my rights?
    The right of the people to be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches is enshrined in the Constitution, so it trumps the right to lets the cops in.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    cpinva,
    simply put patrick, your rights stop where mine begin. that is a basic premise of the constitution. put another way, why should you be able to waive my rights?
    Exactly, flip that statement and works for my argument too. Anything private to the individual who does not consent would be off limits, but common areas where there is dual access could be searched. I'm not really that concerned about it, since it's one court about as far away from me as you can get, but still it's an interesting topic to see how people's minds work. Roy, The key word being unreasonable. Which encompasses the right to consent. Equal trump cards.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    These days it is sooooooooooo easy to get warrants, why even bother asking?
    These days? Nothing has changed for me in my career. Still the same burden for a warrant, probable cause. Of course, I've had warrants in hand before and still asked permission. Sometimes it's nice to be nice.

    Re: Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occu (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    Once during a motion to quash warrant, the Judge asked "who signed this?". Turned out it was him, I dont think that he had ever read it before

    Conn. Restricts Warrantless Searches When Occupants Disagree | 11 comments (11 topical)