Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Bill of Rights / Supreme Court
The Supreme Court yet again has shown the American People how irrelevant it has become.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices have decided that the the Fourth Amendment allows for warrantless searches and seizures because you are not at home to refuse the police, have been arrested, or your roommate can approve such a search without your consent.
"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.
As well in this case the Supreme Court went back on its decision of when two occupants disagree about letting the police in are present, the objecting occupant prevails. The justices ruled in 2006 in a 5-3 decision. That decision is now null and void.
The case that changed the definition of the Fourth Amendment is as follows:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting argument that "Fernandez's objection to the search did not become null upon his arrest and removal from the scene." A person being arrested for anything including domestic violence has not given up their rights. It's called due process, innocent before proven guilty, but the High Court no longer views Americans in this light.Police found a shotgun, ammunition and a knife when they searched the Los Angeles apartment that Walter Fernandez shared with his girlfriend, Roxanne Rojas.
Fernandez told police they could not enter. But shortly after his arrest, officers returned to the apartment and persuaded Rojas to let them in.
Fernandez is serving a 14-year prison term on robbery and guns charges.
When Rojas first answered the door for police, she was crying and holding her 2-month-old baby. She had a fresh bump on her nose, and blood on her hands and shirt. She said she had been in a fight.
At that point Fernandez appeared and ordered the police to get out, telling them he knew his constitutional rights. The police believed the couple had just been in a fight and removed Fernandez from the apartment in handcuffs. An officer noticed a tattoo on Fernandez' shaved head that matched the description of a robbery suspect. Fernandez soon was arrested.
California maintained in its argument at the court that police had enough evidence at that point to get a warrant. But they said one was unnecessary because Rojas had the authority to let them in, despite Fernandez's earlier objection.
The court agreed with that proposition Tuesday.
The case is Fernandez v. California, 12-7822.
To refresh the memories of the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The Supreme Court keeps introducing new decisions that vacate our rights and freedoms for the growth of the police state. This behavior of not providing checks and balances on the Executive Branch but encouraging such inequalities is inappropriate. It appears the Supreme Court wants the police, government, and military to be lawless within our own borders.
In this decision, is the Supreme Court sanctioning future edicts for martial law?
Source: AP, FindLaw,