Facepalms from here.

[theweaselking]

USSC rules that refusing to consent to a search of your home doesn't bar the police from making a "consent search" - all they have to do is arrest you after your refusal, take you away, and ask someone else. And that's good enough.

"So, do *you* consent to us searching your home? Keep in mind we just dragged off the last guy who refused."

(To be slightly fair, they weren't arresting him FOR refusing consent. He just refused consent before being arrested, and as the Dissent points out, THAT'S WHAT FUCKING WARRANTS ARE FUCKING FOR.)

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the issue of her consent was not, in fact, the point of law the USSC was considering. They were only deciding whether or not it is legal to have consent refused, remove the refuser, then ignore his refusal.

Which is to say, "whether or not you have a right to refuse a warrantless search, absent probable cause". And they ruled that nope, a warrantless search that you have refused is TOTALLY OKAY in certain circumstances.

The coercion of Rojas is shit-flavoured icing on the turdcake. Even if she'd been enthusiastically asking them to come in and search, his refusal should have barred them from using a "consent search".

(She could have brought out something incriminating and handed it to them, which might have been probable cause. Or they could have gotten a warrant. Both of those would be cool.)