home

Supreme Court Takes Another Hit at Fourth Amendment

In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Alito (Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented), the Supreme Court made another dent in the Fourth Amendment today. The case is Fernandez v. California and the opinion is here.

The Court upheld the search of a jointly shared residence even though one of the parties objected. The Court said he wasn't physically present when the search occurred, and it didn't matter that he wasn't there because the police had removed him from the residence -- after he objected to the search.

Previously, in Randolph v. Georgia, the Court held "a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search[of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.”

In this case, police came to suspect Fernandez' home and asked permission to search. Fernandez objected. They hauled him off to jail, came back later when his girlfriend (who was also an alleged victim) was there, and got consent from her. Fernandez' argument:[More...]

First, he claims that his absence should not matter since he was absent only because the police had taken him away. Second, he maintains that it was sufficient that he objected to the search while he was still present. Such an objection, he says, should remain in effect until the objecting party “no longer wishes to keep the police out of his home.”

Not so, says the Court. Its logic:

In Randolph, the Court suggested in dictum that consent by one occupant might not be sufficient if “there is evidence that the police have removed the potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of avoiding a possible objection.” 547 U. S., at 121. We do not believe the statement should be read to suggest that improper motive may invalidate objectively justified removal. Hence, it does not govern here.

The Randolph dictum is best understood not to require an inquiry into the subjective intent of officers who detain or arrest a potential objector but instead to refer to situations in which the removal of the potential objector is no objectively reasonable....

“Indeed, we have never held, outside limited contexts such as an ‘inventory search or administrative inspection . . . , that an officer’s motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment.’”

The ruling:

We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason.

How is this not twisted logic? By the Court's analysis, a warrant is never needed to search a home so long as police arrest the person when he opens the door, and after he's whisked away, get the remaining occupant to consent.

If police cause the absence, they should be required to either honor the objection the resident made before being hauled off or get a warrant.

The Court also praises warrantless consent searches because they lessen the burden on cops:

A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant. Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search, the magistrate who must review the warrant application, and the party willing to give consent. When a warrantless search is justified, requiring the police to obtain a warrant may “unjustifiably interfer[e] with legitimate law enforcement strategies.”

It also says the rights of the consenting occupant should be honored over the objecting resident's rights.

The lawful occupant of a house or apartment should have the right to invite the police to enter the dwelling and conduct a search. Any other rule would trample on the rights of the occupant who is willing to consent.

Not until the last paragraph does the Court's motive come through: This is a victim's rights case, and the rights of the victim are paramount.

Denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence. Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent. The Fourth Amendment does not give him that power.

Someone should remind the Court that Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, was designed to protect the rights of those accused of crime, not crime victims.

So, five male justices viewed the case through the lens of a domestic violence victim, while the three women justices held out for the Constitution. (Scalia went his own way in a concurring opinion, talking about property rights). The dissent:

[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims. . . . 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 . . . Domestic abuse is indeed “a serious problem in the United States,” ... appropriate policy responses to this scourge may include fostering effective counseling, providing public information about, and ready access to, protective orders, and enforcing such orders diligently. As the Court understood in Randolph, however, the specter of domestic abuse hardly necessitates the diminution of the Fourth Amendment rights at stake here.

The dissent has some good quotes, including this one from a 1948 case, Johnson v. United States:

The warrant requirement, Justice Jackson observed, ranks among the fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police state where they are the law.

A few more dissent quotes:

"[W]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals. At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’”...“[T]he physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which. . . the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

...the Framers saw the neutral magistrate as an essential part of the criminal process shielding all of us, good or bad, saint or sinner, from unchecked police activity.

...the Fourth Amendment, the Court has long recognized, “reflects the view of those who wrote the Bill of Rights that the privacy of a person’s home and property may not be totally sacrificed in the name of maximum simplicity in enforcement of the criminal law.”

< Judge Sets Trial in Mexico for Chapo Guzman | Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    In this case, police came to suspect Fernandez' home and asked permission to search. Fernandez, who was home alone, objected. They hauled him off to jail, came back later when his girlfriend (who was also the complaining witness) was there, and got consent from her. Fernandez' argument

    Is factually incorrect.  Rojas (the girlfriend) answered the door both times police came to the door, which is how police saw that her face was bloodied, she had bruises and her nose had a bump on it. Fernandez was never home alone. He was arrested, not only on suspicion of the robbery, but also on domestic abuse charges, and was immediately removed from the home, which I believe is standard practice.

    yes she was home (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:10:25 PM EST
    Thanks for the correction about her being home, I'll change that. It doesn't change the analysis however. The facts are that he objected, they hauled him off, and came back an hour later to get her consent. No one questions that they had probable cause to arrest him, that's not the issue. The dissent:

    After Walter Fernandez, while physically present at his home, rebuffed the officers' request to come in, the police removed him from the premises and then arrested him, albeit with cause to believe he had assaulted his cohabitant, Roxanne Rojas. At the time of the arrest, Rojas said nothing to contradict Fernandez' refusal. About an hour later, however, and with no attempt to obtain a search warrant, the police returned to the apartment and prevailed upon Rojas to sign a consent form authorizing search of the premises.

    The dissent also questions the voluntariness of her consent:

    Although the validity of Rojas' consent is not before us, the record offers cause to doubt that her agreement to the search was, in fact, an unpressured exercise of self-determination. At the evidentiary hearing on Fernandez' motion to suppress, Rojas testified that the police, upon returning to the residence about an hour after Fernandez' arrest, began questioning her four-year-old son without her permission. App. 81, 93.Rojas asked to remain present during that questioning, but the police officer told her that their investigation was "going to determine whetheror not we take your kids from you right now or not." Id., at 93. See also ibid. ("I felt like [the police] were going to take my kids away from me."). Rojas thus maintained that she felt "pressured" into giving consent. Id., at 93-94. See also id., at 93 ("I felt like I had no rights."). After about 20 or 30 minutes, Rojas acceded to the officer's request thatshe sign a consent form. Rojas testified that she "didn't want to sign[the form]," but did so because she "just wanted it to just end." Id., at
    100.


    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 06:59:50 AM EST
    Taking Alito's position for a moment - what would be the difference if the police left, and Fernandez went to the store?  Could they come back then and ask to do a search?  How much time do you think is an "appropriate" amount of time between his refusal and her consent? Do the police have to wait a day, a week, a year?

    As to the "voluntariness" question of her consent - if it was really an issue, why wouldn't it have been appealed in the first place? Bad lawyering? Remember - this woman was abused by Fernandez.  Could it be that her "I felt pressure" statement came after the fact because she was afraid that Fernandez would get out and cause her or her child more physical harm? Do you think that's why the search was never appealed on those grounds because her "retraction" was shaky and false at best?

    Parent

    one point I dont understand (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nyjets on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    I may have missed it and I am sorry.
    But it seems that the jobs had more than enough probable cause for search warrant and to at least seal the area to preserve evidence.
    Why didn't the cops just get a search warrant?

    That's a good question (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by dk on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    That is actually one of Ginsburg's most persuasive arguments against the majority, in my opinion.  There was no need for having to rely on the girlfriend's consent.

    Parent
    is it really unreasonable? (none / 0) (#2)
    by gilligan on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:03:21 PM EST
    "FERNANDEZ
    v
    . CALIFORNIA
    CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA
    ,
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    No. 12-7822. Argued November 13, 2013--Decided February 25, 2014
    Police officers observed a suspect
    in a violent robbery run into an
    apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the
    apartments. They knocked on th
    e apartment door, which was an
    -
    swered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding.
    When the officers asked her to step
    out of the apartment so that they
    could conduct a protective sweep, peti
    tioner came to the door and ob
    -
    jected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed
    petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. "

    Is is REALLY an unreasonable government intrusion for police to knock on a door when they hear screaming coming from the inside of an apartment?  Should they run to a court to get a warrant?    

    it was unreasonable for them (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:41 PM EST
    to come back an hour later and get consent from her knowing he had refused. No one was in danger when they came back to search.

    No one said they had no grounds to arrest him. The issue is the search of the house after he was taken away and had refused.

    Parent

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:08:13 AM EST
    it's a dirty police trick...and the SC just endorsed it.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:18:51 AM EST
    After he committed armed robbery, he was unlucky enough to have been seen by a witness who was able to get to a police officer quickly.  Then Fernandez made another mistake - beating the crap out of his girlfriend right before the cops show up on the unrelated robbery suspicion.  If it wasn't for her bloodied and bruised face, the cops probably didn't have enough to arrest him right there and remove him from the premises and would have had to go get a search warrant.  Seems like he needs a new line of work - crime doesn't seem to pay for him.

    I'm wondering if the fact that the police heard the screaming and violence from the argument would have been enough for exigent circumstances and would have allowed them to go in without knocking at that point as well.

    Parent

    Fernandez... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    is not the issue jb.  Our 4th amendement rights are...or should I say were, the 4th needs dentures because the courts have pulled all it's teeth.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:47:17 AM EST
    I don't see it in this case.

    Someone who lived in the apartment gave consent to search. End of story. No 4th Amendment violation. (And my question remains - still seems the police would have had a good case for busting in without a warrant anyway under the exigent circumstances rule, since they heard Fernandez beating the crap out of his girlfriend at the time they arrived at the apartment).

    This is a very narrow exception that even the dissent admits won't apply in very many cases.

    In the end, the practicalities of today's ruling seem limited, because Justice Ginsburg is correct in noting that in most cases we care about, police will have either an exigency that permits immediate warrantless entry or probable cause that allows them to quickly obtain a warrant.  Just last Term, in Missouri v. McNeely, the Chief Justice noted that "e-warrants" can be obtained in fifteen minutes or less.  Thus, today's decision is unlikely to make large waves in the deep ocean of Fourth Amendment caselaw.  The larger battles, however (excuse my mixed metaphors), have yet to be fought.  Cellphone searches and NSA surveillance remain to be explored. Today's opinion provides little signal as to the Justices' views in these broader arenas.

     

    Parent

    Granted... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    it's not the biggest dump the court took on the 4th...but it's another chink in the armor that protects us all.

    Parent
    You're so droll sometimes, Kdog. Armor? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    Heck, that's why tomorrow's police state is buying drones today.  4th Amendment armor will be as useless as buggy whips against cellphone trackers that hover over demonstrators, camera carrying drones that hover outside your windows, air sampling drones that sniff the air around your place for traces of illicit chemicals, etc. etc. etc.

    Parent
    Have I told you lately... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    you're a man after me own heart Mr. Natty.

    The civil & human rights future is so bleak, I wanna find a cave.

    Parent

    Re: someone who lived in the apartment (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    wondering if you have to just "reside" vs. actually be one who has signed a lease.  I.e. what gives a person the right to state "this is my home" and 4th amd. protections apply?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    There is firm precedent in co-tenant permission  See United States v. Matlock.

    Also, police can do some limited searches without a warrant even when someone who isn't a tenant, but has "apparent authority", gives permission. (So, if you have someone house sitting for you while you go on vacation, that house sitter can consent to a search, even though they don't technically live there.)

    Link

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    And of course, (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    I'm always open to being corrected by someone who knows this subject much better, but these are the cases that have been referenced and distinguished in the Fernandez case, so maybe there are nuances I'm missing.

    Parent
    Experts (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    I'm always open to being corrected by someone who knows this subject much better....

    Seems like Alito is your guy, but if you want some more informed opinions than your own how about starting with the dissent of Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.

    And if you are not happy with the current bunch, you can read Souter, Stevens, Breyer, said as the majority (5-3) in Georgia v Randolph.

    Parent

    I did (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    Thank you very much. I don't know what "Alito's my guy means", but it must mean something in your head, as it always does.

    I don't agree with the dissent in this case.

    And if you actually read both opinions, you would see that the holding in Randolph applied when both parties were present.  In the Fernandez case, Walter Fernandez was already gone after being arrested on domestic violence and armed robbery charges and this case clarified that since he wasn't there, the girlfriend, who also has a vested interest in the privacy of the home, and can consent to a search, did so.  THAT is established precedence. It's his sorry luck he decided to beat his girlfriend when the cops were looking for him for armed robbery.

    The fact that Ginsburg was worried about whether her consent was coerced was not an issue in this case because Fernandez' lawyers didn't pursue it and wasn't before the court, so it is moot. If they thought they had a strong issue for appeal, they would have used it.  Obviously, there were some problem with the "coercion" angle, and Ginsburg can only speculate at this point.

    Parent

    Alito's Your Guy (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    I don't know what "Alito's my guy means", but it must mean something in your head, as it always does.

    Not in my head but a quote from you.

    So taking Alito's position for a moment -

    More than a moment.  It appears that you fully agree with him.

    And that comes as no surprise as you consistently argue for victim rights, even when it means eroding well established constitutional rights.

    Parent

    Shrug (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    And that comes as no surprise as you consistently argue for victim rights, even when it means eroding well established constitutional rights.

    So typical of you to have such venom for someone who doesn't see the world through your very narrow view.

    Hmm. Victims have constituitional rights too - like the right not to be beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered, so while you think that's an insult to me, I'm perfectly happy for you to paint me with that moniker. And in this case - I know the liberal media is playing this a an "erosion" of constitutional rights - but this was really a clarification for those very, very small number of cases. But you are proving my point that you didn't actually read both cases and understand them, so I'm not surprised.

    And I don't toe the party line - just because Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan vote one way, doesn't mean I have to always agree with them.  See, it's because I am not a robot, but I acutally use something called critical thinking skills in evaluating things like this case, unlike some people who only want to believe what those labeled with "D" or "Liberal" say.

    Parent

    Venom????? (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:40:55 PM EST
    And as far as me having narrow views regarding 4th amendment rights I guess it depends on your perspective. I am reading many opinions that I agree with that argue that this decision erode 4th amendment rights and expands police authority.

    Your view, which I assume you consider mainstream is in line with conservative opinion: When there is a threat let the police do their job, and screw the paperwork.

    That is how we got the Patriot Act, and how NSA spying will more than likely continue to pass muster with those who think that the Muslims are going to slit their throats in their beds.

    Parent

    Shrug (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    I am reading many opinions that I agree with that argue that this decision erode 4th amendment rights and expands police authority.

    This says it all. I didn't say you had to agree with me - but you sure like purity in opinions expressed around here - everyone should see the world as you do, otherwise they are "conservative", "Republican", or some other name you think hurls an insult at them.  Whatever.

    And then there's this:

    Your view, which I assume you consider mainstream is in line with conservative opinion: When there is a threat let the police do their job, and screw the paperwork

    You like to assume a lot in these comments.  But, you know what they say about assuming.  But in this case, there's only person it's making an a$$ out of, and it's not me.

    Critical T

    Parent

    TL = Talk Left (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    Purity? Your POV is outlier here. Note the title of the
    thread:

    Supreme Court Takes Another Hit at Fourth Amendment

    Your remark that I have a "narrow" vision regarding this case is pretty hilarious considering that this site is devoted to constitutional rights and criminal justice issues.

    I am mainstream here on those issues.

    Parent

    Please noteJustice Breyer signed the (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    majority opinion, which doth protest its correctness too much, but the holding affirms the state trial court, state court of appeal, and the California Supreme Court. In addition, the doctrine of "inevitable discovery" would have permitted the trial court to rule against defendant's' motion to suppress.

    Parent
    "How is this not twisted logic?" (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    By the Court's analysis, a warrant is never needed to search a home so long as police arrest the person when he opens the door, and after he's whisked away, get the remaining occupant to consent.
    Indeed. It does seem ripe for abuse.

    The handful of cases (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:51:38 PM EST
    Where this has been an issue (and reached higher courts) has involved domestic abuse, so it's generally a good thing when those guys have been "whisked away".

    Where this would apply is in a pretty rare event:

    George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg observes that cases of disagreement between home occupants are relatively rare because it's unusual that police find everyone at home when they come to the door. Much, he says, depends on luck. "You have to be lucky enough to be physically present and able to object when the police ask for consent."


    Parent
    Funny that the 4th... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    doesn't mention luck being a necessity in order to be free of a warrantless search.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    But when you're a criminal, you kinda takes your chances anyway, right?

    Parent
    I haven't studied the decision, but (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    I think what is troublesome is that it isn't just "criminals" whose 4th amendment rights are more open to chance, but the rights of everyone else, as well.

    The question I would like someone to answer is whether anyone in judicial authority considers that these separate decisions do not exist in a vacuum, that they get added to all the other decisions that have chipped away at these essential rights and have a cumulative effect far more damaging than what results from the decision rendered with respect to any one particular case.

    What we tend to forget is that these protections don't just attach to us when we're accused of doing something wrong - when they are weakened for the accused, they are weakened for all of us.  

    I don't think all cops and judges are corrupt, I think they are human, just like the rest of us.  But they have something the rest of us don't have: authority and power.  And these rights we have are supposed to even the playing field against such authority and power to ensure that we don't all fall victim to abuses of it.

    Parent

    Oh, I see (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:13:46 PM MDT

    But when you're a criminal, you kinda takes your chances anyway, right?

    Because this tactic will/would only be used on real criminals. After all, the police would never knock on the door of an innocent party. Amiright?

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    Just like all cops and prosecutors and judges are corrupt.

    This verdict wasn't unexpected, and yet there are people who are SHOCKED!.

    Puh-leeze.

    And in this particular case, justice was served.  Isn't THAT what it's all about?

    Parent

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:19:01 PM MDT

    Just like all cops and prosecutors and judges are corrupt.

    Making sh!t up again, I see.

    This verdict wasn't unexpected, and yet there are people who are SHOCKED!.
    One needn't be shocked to be dismayed.

    And in this particular case, justice was served.  Isn't THAT what it's all about?
    No. It isn't. This is about interpretation of the law for the entire population, not application of the law towards a single defendent. The SCOTUS didn't hear this case in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendent.

    Parent
    And that interpretation (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    Was correct, in my opinion.

    Your mileage may vary.

    This is about interpretation of the law for the entire population, not application of the law towards a single defendent. The SCOTUS didn't hear this case in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendent.

    Not entirely true.  While there is no determination of guilt or innocence at the Supreme Court level (rather, not enough evidence to convict, as NO court determines innocence, and in this case, Fernandez WAS guilty), the fact is this ruling clarified already established Fourth Amendment precedence for very specifc (and rare) instances of conducting searches with third party consent.

    But where you are incorrect is, that yes, it IS also the application of the law with respect towards THIS defendant.  A similar case could come to the Court, with a few different facts, and the Court could come up with a completely different outcome.

    And here's the funny part:  the cops never asked Fernandez for consent to search.  He told them to go away, and they removed him from the home when they saw blood on the girlfriend (which is standard procedure in suspected domestic violence cases). The only person in this case that was ever asked for consent to search the apartment, was the girlfriend. There was no evidence that the police only arrested him and took him away so they could get permission to search the apartment. Are you saying the girlfriend didn't have a right to consent to a search of her own apartment? Are you saying that just because he said no, the police can never come back and ask again? (Because that's not what the law says).  

    THAT'S what this case is about.

    So, flame away.

    Parent

    True in the literal sense (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    ...it IS also the application of the law with respect towards THIS defendant.
    In the practical sense that's almost irrelevant. Most SC cases are there because of a legal principle and the affected party becomes almost incidental. Not to themselves, of course, the plaintiff finds it very pertinent. But in the global scheme of things, that's secondary.

    I'm not going into the tiny little rabbit hole that you like to create to view a single case. That's your bailiwick. Analyzing over-arching patterns and implications to find a set of algorithms is mine. I find your method too often leads to not seeing the forest for the trees. Especially when you tend to see only a few of the trees.

    THAT'S what this case is about.
    You forgot to add "So there!"

    Parent
    So do we need a no searching sign (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    as well as no trespassing?

    Would that have any legal weight to put a document on the door stating your objection to any search without a warrant?

    My first thought, and I read about this in more detail on VC, was that this was a poor case to look at for precedence, but maybe its flaws are what is needed to split hairs?

    Actually I am more concerned with hearsay (none / 0) (#38)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:36:59 PM EST
    evidence based search warrants. Half a dozen claims can be made anonymously that will almost certainly result in search warrant and search against your will even if present.