Thanks, Supreme Court! I’m trying to write more about things I find important, and this is definitely one.
Here’s the deal: it used to be, that if you expressly denied entrance to your home for a search, police had to obtain a warrant, which presumbly put up a barrier to illegal searches. Police have previously found ways around this, such as locating sympathetic judges, etc. to sign off on warrants quickly.
However, the Court’s ruling recently kind of blows my mind. Now, if there are two occupants in a place that police want to search, and they disagree on whether to allow police to search the place, police can arrest the dissenter and they will then be considered “absent”, allowing the search to proceed.
I’m not normally a paranoid one, but how is that not some Kafka-esque police-state shit going on there? “Oh, you dissent but your friend doesn’t, so we’ll just arrest you. Problem solved!” Definitely not erring on the side of protecting citizens there.Comments