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.

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.