Defending the Truth

Top court rules against police in search case

Updated: 8:02 p.m. ET March 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court’s new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.

Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man’s wife invited them in.

The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches covers a scenario when one home occupant wants to allow a search and another occupant does not.

The ruling by Justice David Souter stopped short of fully answering that question — saying only that in the Georgia case it was clear that Scott Fitz Randolph was at the door and objected to the officers entry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11959183/

IMO, I agree with the court's ruling.
The argument that won me over: "Stevens said that “assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other’s constitutional right to deny entry to their castle.”"

And as an addendum, I hope this doesn't impact exigent circumstances cases.

That is interesting. I too agree with the ruling.

I believe that the facts of the case are just as important as the ruling. This case involved police arriving at a residence to investigate a case of domestic violence. The court has now said that one of the individuals in a house can overrule the police coming in, it is a sad day for women's rights. I want to know where is the outcry from NOW??? Its funny, after all their complaints about Robert's and Alito's confirmation, Robert's actually rules in favor of women's rights. Just goes to show you how unimportant NOW has become.
This decision I believe will come back to bite the justices on the backside.

dmk

Can you explain why a police officer can't ask the two fighting parties to step outside? They really don't need to enter a home to investigate domestic abuse.

If this case involved exigent circumstances, and the court ruled against the cops, I would be completely in your corner. If the ruling impacts exigent circumstance cases, I believe I may be just as concerned as you.

With that said, there is no stated reason for why the cops should have entered the residence under exigent circumstances. No stated reason for why they should have entered the residence under a need to protect the wife. No stated reason for why domestic abuse laws would have invoked a need to enter the residence.

And, as hevusa pointed out, they could have just asked them to step outside.

They were obviously talking to the wife, and it looks like they thought she was safe. The REASON GIVEN for entering the house was because of the wife's permission. That's it. JUST that.

Unless there are other circumstances not discussed in the article, I think you're over-stating things. I see no reason to believe this is an issue of "woman's rights", although I can see how it can easily be made into one if this ruling impacts exigent circumstances.

And just for reference...
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm
"EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES - Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F. 2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1993). The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id.

A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant."

Police officers routinely enter a house whne answering a call for domestic abuse. The idea of asking the individuals to step outside is ridiculous, because one or both parties can and could refuse, if that is the case, then the police would be powerless to do anything regarding the situation.

Think about that.....if the police arrive and one party asks them to come, and and the second party says no what are the police to do???? While I understand the reasoning behind the decision, it still creates a condition that could hamper further police investigations. If a call of domestic abuse is made, and the officers see no signs of abuse and the wife wishes to have them come in and the husband says no, the police would then have to turn around and leave. If that women is later injured or killed by the husband and the family members sue the police, the police would probably lose, and it will be the city and taxpayers paying that award and not the members of the Supreme Court.

Even in this case, the police received permission to look around the house. As a result incriminating evidence was found. The police did nothing wrong. The asked for and got permission from a resident of the house. In the future who is to determine who has the say in who can enter or not enter the house. Do police now have to determine who pays the bills in the family to see whose persmission they need? What if both members pay the bills?? This decision has done nothing more than cause more questions to arise regarding police action. If some one is not at home and the police get permission to enter from someone who is at home is this legal. Or if we are relying solely upon the idea of property, what about instances where the property is rented, could the police not get permission from the actual owner to search rather than the renter????

As I have stated, this case will come back around and bite the Court.

dmk

I see how this could cause a HUGE problem. You are right. But what is the answer to this constitutional issue? If one party wants to allow access and one doesn't, one person certainly can't truimph the other one.

Interesting problem. There must be a solution. For instance if one person calls the police about a domestic issue and the other party refuses to come outside the police would have automatic permission to go inside and bring him or her out.

I don't know. What do you think about that?

A police officer entering a house when answering for domestic abuse typically revolves around exigent circumstances, and the laws vary from state to state. Some states have tougher laws and give police more power than others. Some states have laws governing circumstances where both parties deny abuse is taking place, and give police power to make their own determination regarding the crime.

And what the heck is entering the house going to do for the police? Either they can act on the issue of abuse, or they can't. Entering the house isn't going to really affect that. The evidence of abuse is the victim herself/himself. The victim's testimony to the abuse.
Evidence of abuse is not going to be found in a dresser drawer...

I see nothing ridiculous about asking them to step outside. If the victim wants to step outside, then the victim does. If the assailant does not wish to, then he doesn't. If the victim refuses to, then the victim has refused. The "stepping outside" is more of an issue of separating the two so statements can be made without intimidation of the other... Not an issue of allowing search of the house.
The assailant can't claim "sanctuary" in the house if he is going to be arrested, and he doesn't want to come outside.
I see a hypothetical idea that the police must enter the unit for domestic violence as more ridiculous, unless one of the parties is not present and presumed inside. And that would be an issue of exigent circumstances...


The issue is ENTERING the house.
If one party asks them to come to the residence, and the other asks that they don't, there is no issue. The other party has no right to insist that the police not show up on his front door-step.

If one party asks them to come to the residence, they show up. That party can then step outside and talk to the police. If the police are persuaded that domestic abuse is taking place, then can arrest the party involved. If they are going to arrest the party involved, his "refusal" to let them in is irrelevant.


I see no reason why the law-suit should be successful. The police came, and if there are no signs of domestic abuse, there are no signs.
How will entering the house suddenly give them a sign of domestic abuse? The evidence of domestic abuse would be the wife's testimony and/or bruises to the wife's body. How would a person get evidence of domestic abuse inside a home that is not readily available on the outside?

If the police come, and the WIFE MAKES THE CHOICE to stay, I don't see how anybody could sue. But then again, our American legal system is ridiculously skewed to enable skewing, so while I personally see no grounds of fault, some might disagree. But even in that, I see nothing that the ruling has changed which will enhance law-suits...


1) The police did do something wrong. They enacted a search of somebody's house when the party involved was present and explicitly told them not to.

2) Who is to say who can enter or not enter the house?
That's simple. Nothing has changed on that front.
The people THAT LIVE THERE.
The issue is that one resident gave permission, AND AT THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION, another resident refused entry.
The issue is the EXISTANCE of PERMISSION CONFLICT. If the conflict is not present, and permission is granted, then the police can enter.
I see nothing in this ruling which would make the police go out and seek extra permission.


A lot of the previous rules still apply.
This was a NEW situation that isn't seen in most cases. TWO parties present giving CONFLICTING statements on allowing entry.
THAT is the issue. If you only have one resident present, then the old rules apply.
You're making this a lot harder than it is...


Yes to the first.
The second is more dicey, and I don't see anything in this ruling that really affects that situation. It isn't changed, unless you have BOTH the landlord AND the tenant present with conflicting desires towards search...


I imagine it could. Some of the justices on the opposing side stated that the ruling gives too little guidance on how to proceed.

One area I don't see mentioned is if the wife grants access, and the husband is present. Must the police then ask the husband if he also grants access? Must the police then inform the husband that he has the right to deny access, and give him that possibility explicitly explained like a pseudo-Miranda right?

Personally, I would say "no" to the questions based on this ruling. Nothing I have read says that the court specified such procedures. But the answer is not given definitively within the ruling, at least as far as I can see...

"Roberts (dissenting opinion) wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court had previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday's decision.

Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts noted.

"The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.

But Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying that the police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger.

"[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "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; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists."

Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that "the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion noting that his decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that Souter's analysis applies to cases such as this one, Georgia v. Randolph , No. 04-1607, in which the police were searching for evidence of a crime, rather than intervening in a violent dispute.

"[T]oday's decision will not adversely affect ordinary law enforcement practices," Breyer wrote."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032200743.html

Hopefully this clears some things up. More and more, it becomes clear to me that this case IS NOT going to impact exigent circumstances which would typically allow police to enter a home to protect a domestic abuse victim.

That's a situation which is not affected by this ruling...

If the one party refused to allow the police entry before, and the complainant is not seen, that is an entirely separate case from what was said in this court case. The court ruling said nothing about such a situation.

It didn't strengthen ANY OTHER issue of objection to searching, beyond specifying that if TWO people were present, with one allowing the search and one refusing, in THAT SPECIFIC case they cannot search.

To put it another way, if your scenario was not a problem before this ruling, it's still not a problem.
If it was a problem before this ruling, it's still a problem and needs to be fixed regardless of this ruling...