Interesting ruling
R. Neal at Knoxviews points to this ruling by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple’s home unless both partners present agree to let them in.
The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.
The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had previously said that police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.
Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives, or boyfriends and girlfriends, keep police busy around the country; in the District, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved alleged domestic violence.
I find it odd that the wife stating that her husband had cocaine wasn’t enough probable cause. In some cases, this ruling may limit police involvement in domestic violence issues and that has the potential to be bad for victims of such violence. However, there’s also the issue that, in domestic disputes, people will lie their asses off to get leverage for custody of kids and assets; or just to be dicks. I’ve seen it happen and you probably have a friend who went through some nasty separation and was lied about by their former significant other. And I don’t mean white lies, I mean full-fledged he threw me down the stairs kind of lies. I’ve seen it happen.
In my opinion, this ruling is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenarios.
Update: S. Carpenter in comments at Knoxviews says:
I agree Souter, who wrote the majority opinion, that Roberts’ argument concerning domestic abuse situations is a red herring.
In Tennessee, officers may arrest persons for domestic assault without a warrant if they have observations (red marks, broken household items, etc.) to go along with the accusation of assault. In all other misdemeanors, officers must see the offense to arrest without a warrant.
Where the circumstances warrant the arrest for domestic assault, whether officers can enter the home to search seems irrelevant. Alleged assaulter goes to jail whether he/she consents to a search or not. Absent some other circumstances, there is no need to search the house.
If officers need to search the home to further the investigation and the arrested spouse/co-inhabitant has objected, officers can get a search warrant. Presumably the alleged victim will supply sufficient information to support the probable cause needed to get a warrant. The alleged offender is in custody alleviating concerns for destroyed evidence. Two hours or so later, a lawful search occurs in the home.
I really can’t think of a circumstance where this decision would create a problem. I don’t think Roberts’ and the minority have a clue as to how arrests occur in domestic assault cases.
Makes it seem reasonable to me.
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
I think the ruling is spot on. Suppose you tell all the adults in your family to say no, on general principles, to a request to search your home. Your ever helpful wife or eighteen year old son who spent too much time at government school says yes just as you turn the corner to see what’s up. After telling the officers no to the search they tell you “all it takes is one adult”. All it takes is one adult to make you feel violated. Gets better when they find pot in the eighteen year old son’s bedroom.
I’ve told all of mine to say no in all situations and to decline to answer investigators questions always but who knows if the, so far untested, lesson holds.
Dissapointed but unsurprised by Roberts.
March 23rd, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I’ve read all the opinions, and the majority got this one wrong. They take what was a bright line area of the law and makes it clear as mud.
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I was going to write exactly what Carptener opined.
I was suprised by Robert’s reasoning.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“I find it odd that the wife stating that her husband had cocaine wasn’t enough probable cause.” I doubt the problem was probable cause. They just didn’t want to have to find a prosecutor to write up the warrant and then find a judge to sign it when they were already there.