February 28

Another View: Supreme Court ruling opens the door to warrantless searches

Tuesday’s decision sends a message that police can skirt the Fourth Amendment and not be punished for it.

Los Angeles Times

When an occupant of a home refuses to allow police to search the premises, officers should keep their distance until they obtain a warrant based on probable cause. The Supreme Court on Tuesday needlessly weakened that important Fourth Amendment principle.

The 6-3 decision eviscerated a 2006 ruling in which the court ruled that police must respect “a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search” even if a spouse or roommate gives consent.

Walter Fernandez, a robbery suspect, told Los Angeles Police Department officers in 2009 that he didn’t want them to search his apartment.

Police arrested him, and an hour later an officer returned and asked his companion for permission to search the apartment. The search turned up gang paraphernalia, a knife and a gun. Fernandez was eventually convicted of robbery and domestic abuse.

In ruling that the search was valid, the Supreme Court purported to reaffirm its 2006 holding but redefined it almost out of existence.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the earlier decision “applies only when the objector is standing in the door saying ‘stay out’ when officers propose to make a consent search.” Once the suspect leaves the property – even unwillingly in the back of a police cruiser – the objection becomes null and void.

By blessing the warrantless search of Fernandez’s apartment, the majority not only undermined its previous ruling but also sent a message that police can skirt the Fourth Amendment and not be punished for it by the courts.

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)