In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don’t need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.
“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”
Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the man’s refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorities from entering. (Source: Read more)
Click on photo to read what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say reported on the Huffington Post.
A depressing but unsurprising decision by the majority, and a rational dissent by Justice Ginsburg. I think that Justice Ginsburg is correct that the Court has stepped into a minefield. I also think that it’s going to explode at some point and inflict a lot of damage. The religious beliefs of corporations, closely held or not, should play no role in the coverage offered in health plans for employees. What if the business is a closely-held corporation in which the employers’ faith prohibits blood transfusions, does this decision mean that the corporation can refuse to cover blood transfusions in their health plans for religious reasons? Far-fetched? Not in the least. There are religions that oppose blood transfusions and this decision certainly could be used to argue the closely-held corporation’s right to act according to its owners religious beliefs.
"The Supreme Court delivered a blow to universal birth control coverage on Monday, ruling that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the five conservatives on the court, delivering a scathing, 35-page dissent and defense of mandatory contraception coverage."
"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," Ginsburg wrote. She said she feared that with its decision, the court had "ventured into a minefield." by Sheria Reid
Note: I am not only friends with Attorney Sheria Reid on Facebook but I know her on a personal note. She is originally from Wilson NC. I met her when she worked for the NC Justice & Policy Center whereby I went through training with her and I received Certificates from the Education & Law Project in the late 90’s. Sheria is a strong intelligent black female.
WASHINGTON — Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.
The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.
The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. (Source: Read more)