Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

WASHINGTON — Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.

"You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights," Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.,0,3...

Views: 888

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion




Kristi Ann Mod 11, We now have a Supreme Court that's opererating beyond the Constitution just like Obama and his AG. Their both giving into every government agency and liberal group that comes a long. When Judge John Roberts sold America out over ACA or Obamacare We the people became unimportant. None of our elected officials care what Americans wanted they were hell bent and leather bound to force the ACA/Obamacare on us. And now it has become the norm and that the hell with what's good for America or the people. Our government is working as hard as it can to push Agenda 21, Rex 84, NDAA and the Patorit Act on we the people. They've got to get all these tools in place before they can make us part of the NWO or have the United Nations come in and take over. It seems that our government is more concerned about what the UN does and says. They could care less about what we the people want. Kinda soiunds like Hitler.  What I have a hard time understanding is why are we the people sitting by and waiting for them to ship us off in cattle cars to a FEMA Camps. These are heartless and corrupt people currently running our government who only have one thing in mind and that's how much power they can gain a long with wealth. Just look at some of our elected officials when they came to the Congress or the Senate.  By their second or third term they've gain much power, wealth and property. This is why none of them would vote for term limits. So good people continue to prepare for the worst and pray for the best to happen.

Come to Washington DC May 16 to take over the city and government. OAS,


item 4 below also takes you one step closer to confiscation while simultaneously one step closer to a police state

 How to  create a socialist state     
 There are  8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to  create a socialist state. The first is the most important.

 1)  Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people

 2) Poverty  - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are  easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing  everything for them to live.

 3) Debt -  Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able  to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

   4) Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the  Government. That way you are able to create a police  state.
 5) Welfare  - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and  Income)

 6)  Education - Take control of what people read and listen to - take  control of what children learn in school.

 7)  Religion - Remove the belief in the God from the Government and  schools

   8) Class Warfare - Divide the people racially as well as wealthy and the poor. This will  cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) from the wealthy with the support of the poor.


Ah, the next ruling will be that they can shoot us if we don't open the door and invite them in within 10 minutes or some such.  Don't the police have any inkling as to who they are?  They will go to the guillotine when they have finished killing all of us.  That is written in their plans.

Another U S of A Constitution - God Given Right being Distroyed right before Our eyes . . . . by Those It's Job is to Protect US 

But look on the 'Bright-Side' United States AG E. Holder says We Have The Right To Not Obey The Laws We Disagree With

Equal protection under the law just got trashed. If he pays any rent he is entitled  to an equal say. Oh well we are not a nation of laws anymore. Whatever the communist can do to disrupt & divide the country will be the policy of the dictator. I sure thought the commies would go against the police especially in California. I got this one wrong.

If Mitt Romney was our President and that decision would have been passed The priesthood would have been a very lively place on sundays. Our history is full of warrant less home invasion by so called law enforcement. 

Well I know I'm going to catch flak for this but I agree with the decision under the circumstances as given. If two or more people are present and any one of them objects to a search then it's hands off until a warrant is obtained except for the "plain sight" or 'hot pursuit" rules. The police did not enter. They abided by the rules. Later, after Fernandez  had been arrested and was no longer present, the police returned and asked Rojas for permission to search the apartment. At that time she was the only occupant and co-inhabitor of the apartment. She had every right to make a decision on her own and consent to a warrantless search of her appartment. If she had said, "No," the police would have had to obtain a warrant but she didn't. At what point does she gain the right to grant permission? An hour later, a day, a week? Or is it that once Fernandez said no, that appartment is off limits without a warrant forever regardless of who lives there?

I still have the right to shoot an invader and that's what an uninvited officer would get. I don't hear to good so it is too bad if they have permission from say... my dog!


They are the intruders.

No one enters my house without my permisstion and that is that.





Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service