News
Police Authority Extended When Entering Homes
When the police come knocking at your door, you usually have two options: one, allow them to search your home regardless of whether or not they have a search warrant; or two, deny them entry until a warrant is presented. Well, you may not even have these two options anymore. The Supreme Court set a new precedent on Tuesday February 25, giving police more authority to search your home if they find someone willing to let them in.
The Supreme Court debated previously accepted notions of when and how the police may enter a home, ultimately ruling in a 6 to 3 decision that the occupant of a home can not object to a home search if he or she is not at home. An occupant who is absent due to an arrest or lawful detention is now placed in the same category as someone who is not home for any other reason, making any of their prior objections to a home search null and void.
A previous ruling in 2006 had upheld the decision that when two occupants disagreed on whether to let the police search their home, the objecting party was honored. After presiding over the court decision of Fernandez v. California, this was reconsidered by Justice Samuel Alito who felt that allowing the objecting party to prevail could be harmful in cases of domestic abuse. This case stemmed from an incident when police uncovered ammunition, a gun, and a knife after searching a Los Angeles apartment shared by couple Walter Fernandez and Roxanne Rojas. When Rojas first answered the door for police, she appeared to have been beaten. Fernandez rushed to the open door and ordered police to leave based on his constitutional rights. Due to the fact that the police were aware of the recent fight between the couple as well as Fernandez’s affiliation to a recent robbery, he was arrested and removed from the scene. After the arrest of Fernandez, police persuaded Rojas to allow them to search the home.Fernandez is currently facing a 14 year sentence on the basis of robbery and gun charges.
When brought to court, California argued that the police had enough evidence to obtain a warrant in order to search the house, but this became unnecessary when Rosa allowed them entry. The court upheld this proposition on Tuesday, creating an adjustment in our justice system which extends the opportunities of the police to search homes in question, when a previously objecting party is no longer present.
The issue at hand becomes whether or not this new precedent will allow the police to abuse their power, giving them the ability to dodge the requirement of a warrant within the domain of home searches. Overall, the purpose of this new authority is to create a fairer and more efficient way to conduct a home search, not a ploy for police to disregard warrants. This precedent gives the police the ability to search a house with consent from one party, rather than having to go through the long process of applying for a warrant and waiting for its approval. It is justified that if one person is arrested and no longer present, the other living in the home can give the police permission to enter. Regarding the case of Fernandez and Rojas, if the police had not accepted Roja’s permission to enter the home, it would have shown a type of disrespect for her independence. She was now the sole occupant of the home, awarding her the right to make the decision regarding a home search. This right that should be respected, regardless of the choice of the no longer present Fernandez. Hopefully, this extension of home search rights will create a more efficient system, one that takes into account the idea that possibly one homeowner may actually want the police to search the home. This extension of authority is not meant to be an abuse of power but rather a more effective way for the police to seek justice.
—
Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)
Featured image courtesy of [Rizuan via Wikipedia]
Comments