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

[ashbet]

Hmmm . . . I agree that it's a bad precedent to set, but if it's narrowly construed, it's not as bad as it sounds -- after all, Petitioner was arrested for, in part, assaulting the co-occupant of the apartment, who then consented to the search (since it was her apartment as well.)

Our opinion in Randolph took great pains to emphasize that its holding was limited to situations in which the objecting occupant is physically present. We therefore refuse to extend Randolph to the very different situation in this case, where consent was provided by an abused woman well after her male partner had been removed from the apartment they shared.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the ruling is likely to be abused by the police, and I'm sure there will be another case where this comes up in the future -- but, in this specific case, I do think it was the correct ruling.

-- A <3

[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.