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

[franklanguage.livejournal.com]

In CD (Civil Disobedience) training, we're trained to state emphatically, "I do not consent to this search," which may be seen as irrelevant by some, but it's something that's likely to be recorded, or at least witnessed.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Would not have helped, here: They were entirely 100% clear that Fernandez had unambiguously refused their request to search his home. So his wording was already clear, he could not have been more clear, and there's no "magic words" he missed.

The issue was that, after he refused, they took him away and then asked someone else. And it's clear that they *threatened* the second person, sure, but that's not the point. Even if they hadn't threatened her to make her say yes, he'd said no. And "present owner says no" is SUPPOSED to be the end of "warrantless search". That's WHY YOU GET A WARRANT.