No "Red Herrings", just more "black eyes"

This is why there is still work required to clear out the dead wood on the Supreme Court.

"WASHINGTON - Police cannot search a home without a warrant if one occupant tells them to stay out, even if another invites them in, a fractured U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

New Chief Justice John Roberts, writing his first dissent, complained that the ruling will make it harder for police to investigate domestic abuse.

But, writing for the 5-3 majority, Justice David Souter said that a Georgia lawyer had a constitutional right to refuse the search of his home and that evidence of illegal drugs found there should be thrown out. The man's estranged wife had consented to the search."

Roberts is right.

"Souter said the decision was based on "widely shared social expectations" of when a person should enter another's home.

"It is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant's invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, 'stay out,' " he wrote. "Without some very good reason, no sensible person would go inside under those conditions."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Roberts in dissenting.

Souter, who derided Roberts' argument on domestic violence as "a red herring," said police could enter a home without a warrant to protect a potential victim from abuse, even if the alleged abuser refused entry. "

Souter is dead wrong. But then he still has his house.

This ruling will make it more difficult for police to conduct Domestic Violence investigations, (No you can't come in) but more over, it may complicate cases such as murder/kidnappings (Jessica Lunsford, anyone?), and in this case a lawyer (officer of the court) using illegal drugs.

HINT: Hey Souter - he's a criminal.

"The case, Georgia v. Randolph, involves Scott and Janet Randolph, an estranged couple who were having a fight at their Americus, Ga., home in July 2001 after Janet Randolph had returned to pick up her belongings. Janet Randolph called the police. While the authorities were at the house, she told them that her husband's cocaine abuse had broken up her family and was causing financial difficulties.
Police asked Scott Randolph, who is a lawyer, if they could search his home. He refused.

They then asked Janet Randolph's permission. She not only consented but led police to an upstairs bedroom, where they found a drinking straw that appeared to have cocaine residue on it.

Police called the district attorney's office, which instructed them to stop the search and get a warrant, which they did. In the second search, they found more evidence of illegal drug use.

After being charged with cocaine possession, Scott Randolph tried to suppress the evidence, saying the initial search violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Evidence found in the second search should be thrown out as well, he argued, because the warrant was based on the first faulty search. The trial court ruled against him, but two Georgia appellate "

Our constitution was never designed to hide the guilty. The police in this case did not use illegal search and seizure, this is absolute judicial misconduct (again) on the part of Souter. Again, the battle to change the court will continue. Let's hope Stephens takes an early retirement.