Home / Badge Abuse / Supreme Court Rules that Cops DO NOT Need a Warrant to Search Your Home

Supreme Court Rules that Cops DO NOT Need a Warrant to Search Your Home

In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don’t need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the man’s refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorities from entering.

“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,” the majority ruled in that case.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the “very core” of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, reports the LA Times.

READ MORE:  California Cops to Begin Charging 5-Year Olds with Misdemeanors

According to the AP, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court’s 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.

“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,” Alito said.

In other words, you have no property rights slave, and we can snoop through your personal belongings if we wish.

The implications for such a Stasi-esque interpretation of the 4th Amendment are staggering. This can and will open the door to even more unscrupulous police behavior. They will only need to say that someone may be in danger, and now they are justified in ransacking your home.

While this doesn’t particularly allow for police to choose and enter any home they wish, it is nothing to be downplayed, especially since Justice Ginsburg, one of their own, even stated that this could lead to even more erosion of what is left of the 4th Amendment.

  • njartist49

    The Supreme Court has overthrown the Constitution. Let Trump be a Jehu and Cromwell to do what must be done to restore the nation and the Constitution.

    • 2broke4 her

      actually there is one branch of the government that doesnt need a search warrant and 99% of the people dont know it!

      • Shire

        Who would that be?

        • 2broke4 her

          Coast Guard

          • gopher

            http://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1/ says they don’t need a warrant to board your boat. Nothing about your home. Although if your boat is your home, that may be sticky.

          • 2broke4 her

            I know the law, its 14 USC 89 AND I was in the Coast Guard and served as a boarding officer.. homes needs warrants unless there is a chase and the person runs into a home! then its open! this clause ” The U.S. Coast Guard also have full legal law enforcement power on any
            land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any
            mission.” was added to it recently for the reason of illegal aliens and drug runners jumping boats and running to shore.. where the Coast Guard Authority ended..

          • darma2u

            fyi you do realize the Coast Guard is not a Branch of the Government they are part of the Military. came back to post because of a notification and realized what you noted……

          • 2broke4 her

            you do realize the Coast Guard comes under the Department of Homeland Security and they also are a law enforcement agency! even when they were under the DOD. ever hear of any military branch arresting someone for a stolen boat or seizing a boat because of gross negligence? uh no! I was a Coast Guard Boarding officer, I worked with local and state Law enforcement agencies.. and if you bothered to check you would notice the Coast Guard is a branch of government, dont confuse it with the DEPARTMENT!

    • Eli McDufford

      Um Mr.Derr now isn’t it the republicans who want Cops to have all this kind of power? YEP! Isn’t it republicans who have the major control over the supreme court? YEP! SO DUMB ASS! You TRUMP ISN’T THE SOLUTION HE IS PART OF THE MOTHER FUCKING PROBLEM DUMB ASS! You retardilicants don’t know when to give up. DUMB ASS!

      • darma2u

        This is what I don’t understand the GOP has the majority in Congress and the majority in the Supreme Court and too many who vote for the Republican’s whine about their decisions, are the ones usually most effected by the decisions…YET they continue to vote for them and against their own best Interest?

  • darma2u

    Matt if you are still out there what exactly are you say “….especially since Justice Ginsburg, one of their own , even stated that this could lead to even more erosion of what is left of the 4th Amendment.” are you implying that Justice Ginsburg is in league with the police? or what ? since you also attached it to her saying this could lead to even more erosion of what is left of the 4th Amendment….?
    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/#AVJV71GIFmxoCogu.99

    • lulubella

      I read it as Ginsburg, as one of the other Supreme Court justices, was in dissent. But it is confusingly written.

      • darma2u

        since to imply Ginsberg was in league with the police or anyone, seemed to me,
        off based (to be kind)

    • Echo Moon

      “dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg”. dissent means to be against. so i find no confusion in understanding that she and whoever was against this ruling of allowing search without a warrent.

  • mykelb

    Anyone stupid enough to let cops into their home without a warrant pretty much deserves the outcome.

    • darma2u

      My read of this article, it does not sound like anyone was “letting” the police in, as applied to the guy who did not want to “let’ the police in, yet the ‘wife’ did?……so the Police ‘forced/bullied’ their way in….my concern, given the overall idea portrayed by too many police across this country is they are free to do whatever the heck they want without regard and they have shown they are not above lying and cover-up to do and get what they want

  • Dave Walker

    If any police officer was to break down my door and enter
    my home, that I have legally denied entry to, would be considered by me to be an intruder and a fear for my life.. I would consider him to be unlawfully breaking and entering and I would take the required action to secure my safety

  • jc w

    good way to get shot repeatedly.