Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Warrantless searches

By Los angeles times

First Published Mar 01 2014 01:01 am • Last Updated Mar 01 2014 01:01 am

The following editorial appeared in Wednesday’s Los Angeles Times:

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

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. In a case from Los Angeles, the Supreme Court on Tuesday needlessly weakened that important 4th 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, made it abundantly clear to LAPD officers in 2009 that he didn’t want them to search his apartment, saying: "You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights."

Or at least he thought he did. Police arrested Fernandez, and an hour later an officer returned and asked Roxanne Rojas, Fernandez’s companion, for permission to search the apartment. The search turned up gang paraphernalia, a knife and a gun, and 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 A. Alito Jr. 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 4th Amendment and not be punished in court.




Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.