The U.S. Supreme Court issued several important criminal law opinions this past week, one of which was bad news for criminal suspects eager to keep police out of their homes. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court found that in certain circumstances police are allowed to enter homes shared by multiple residents over the objections of one party.
The opinion, written by Justice Alito, said that in cases where more than one person shares a residence, police do not need a search warrant to enter the home if one person living at the residence consents to their presence and the other person who objects has been removed or arrested.
The case began back in 2009 in California when police say they received a call concerning a domestic disturbance. When they arrived at the couple’s apartment they heard a woman sobbing and then encountered her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, who told the officers that they did not have the right to enter his home. The cops eventually arrested Fernandez and carted him off to a nearby police station, returning sometime later to search the apartment.
When police arrived the second time, the woman gave her consent for police to enter the home. Officers ended up discovering weapons, gang materials and items of property that were tied to recent robberies. Fernandez was ultimately convicted on several counts and appealed, claiming the Fourth Amendment protects him against a warrantless search by police officers.
The Supreme Court previously dealt with the issue of searching a home with multiple residents back in the 1970s and determined at the time that police could lawfully enter a home based on the consent of one resident when the other residents were away from the home. However, a 2006 decision clarified that police cannot enter a residence without a warrant when two people answer the door and one of them objects.
The recent ruling further clarified exactly when police officers are allowed to enter homes when the occupants disagree. The majority held that once the person who objects to the search leaves, for whatever reason, his or her objection to the search then becomes moot. Alito wrote that to rule any other way would create a host of problems for officers, given that suspects might then be able to register objections in advance or by file a standing objection with local law enforcement authorities.
The dissenting justice disagreed vehemently with the majority and wrote that the majority’s ruling amounts to a repudiation of important Fourth Amendment protections. The majority was taken to task for telling police officers they had the ability to ignore the requirement that warrants be obtained before entering private residences.
Source: “Supreme Court Rulings Deliver Blow to Criminal Suspects,” by Jess Bravin, published at WSJ.com.