Supremes Cut Police Powers to Search Homes, Roberts Dissents

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that when police search a couple’s home, one partner can veto the search even if the other is willing to let them into the house. The dissent was written by Chief Justice Roberts, and it gives one grounds to worry about his ability to reason.

Scott and Janet Randolph of Americus, GA, were having marital trouble, and after a separation, she came back to their home in July 2001. Shortly after her return, she discovered cocaine in the house, and she called the cops (“hell hath no fury . . .”) to rat on Mr. Randolph, who is a lawyer. The police dutifully arrived to search the place, and Mr. Randolph told them they couldn’t come in. They came in anyway, found the Colombian Nose Candy, and the rest is legal fees.

Chief Justice Roberts, in dissent, wrote, “The 4th Amendment protects privacy. If an individual shares information, papers or places with another, he assumes the risk that the other person will in turn share access to that information or those papers or places with the government.” One can only assume that he’d be OK with Justice Souter letting the cops in to search the Chief Justice’s office since they share the Supreme Court Building.

Justice Souter’s footnote called this legal bullshit what it was, “In the dissent’s view, the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over.” More concretely, “[T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders.”

The dissent also played the “protecting the little woman” card. “The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects,” wrote the Chief Justice. Apparently, he forgot that in the event of suspected violence, no warrant is ever necessary.

Justice Souter called that what is was as well. “"[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims,” Souter wrote. “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.”

The most important man in America is still Justice John Paul Stevens’ physician.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home