I Couldn’t Believe This So I Had To Share It

Supreme Court Rules That Cops DO NOT Need A Warrant to Search Your Home by Matt Agorist 2/26/2015 http://www.thefreethoughtproject.com

In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don’t need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence. “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.” Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the man’s refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorities from entering. “A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,” the majority ruled in that case. 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, reports the LA Times. … Matt Agorist’s wrap up: The implications for such a Stasi-esque interpretation of the 4th Amendment are staggering. This can and will open the door to even more unscrupulous police behavior. They will only need to say that someone may be in danger, and now they are justified in ransacking your home. While this doesn’t particularly allow for police to choose and enter any home they wish, it is nothing to be downplayed, especially since Justice Ginsburg, one of their own, even stated that this could lead to even more erosion of what is left of the 4th Amendment. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/#KXOWmbEs3Ul8ZTOT.99

Mickey Byrd responded: Unless the 4th has been repealed, WHICH IT HASN’T…

Sean Thomson wrote: That’s not REALLY what they said. They said in a domestic violence situation, if ONE says yes and one says no, they can enter. But either way I’m not a fan.

Don Ross commented: My American friends, you ignore history at your own peril. How many of you learned of Hitler’s Enabling Act, and its effect on the Weimar Constitution and the power of the Reichstag? You don’t know (and don’t care), I see. Well, it might be of interest to know that the Homeland Security Act carries many provisions that are clear echoes from the Enabling Act of Nazi Germany and the East German Stasi (the state police). They always said, “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a big Red, White, and Blue Bow.

KaTy Haeuptie: Important in domestic violence cases for sure but a very slippery slope for anything else….

Zander Tansy: With domestic violence cases they have reasonable cause to enter and therefore not an unjust entry.

Clay Lovett: The ruling was on a domestic violence case, but went much further. It said that if two parties disagree, the warrant less search is good if one of the parties is arrested. Taking into consideration that one party on a domestic violence call is always arrested, all warrant less searches are now legal. Ta-da…. This doesn’t even begin to cover the cop asking a child for permission to enter.

Now you see why I shared this. :0(