Karaoke Forums

I just heard about this one on the radio and it bothered me.  

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a domestic abuse case in Georgia this week that police must have the consent of both homeowners before they can enter the house."

This seems to be an example of where a court ruling sets up an obstacle that goes against maintaining the safety and well being of citizens in domestic violence cases.
A scenario of a wife (or husband) asking their abusing spouse's permission for the police to enter the house seems ridiculous.

Anybody have any thoughts on this one?

Yeah,  I have a thought.....

Why don't they just go back to the old days where a man was allowed to beat his wife or even kill her if he thought he had good reason?

That would surely save the government some money, if wife beaters & murderers no longer had to be in the jails.

That's got to be one of THE stupidest things I've ever heard of. So..... if a woman is being abused, calls the law for protection..... they will stand outside and listen to her screams for help,  because hubby says "no, you may not enter my residence"?

Smart, smart rule benders there in Georgia.  :no:

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥

You know, I'm all for the right to privacy..."A man's home is his castle..." and all that...but there are certain situations where "probable cause" becomes overwhelming, and consent is no longer an issue!!

That's what we get having a country run by lawyers!!  

_________________
[glow=white][scroll]Live, laugh, and love today--just in case tomorrow doesn't make it[/scroll][/glow]

Lets go back about 50 years before the liberal social engineers totally destroyed all the old traditions. People lived on their front porches and in the streets. They drank in the corner bars without fear of losing their livlihood because of having a few beers too many. It was common for a couple of drunks to go out in the alley bloody each other up and then be back in the bar buying each other beers. If there was any major problems with unruly kids or gangs they nipped it in the bud in a heart beat. My mother or sisters have never been abused in their life because if anybody tried there is a few rednecks around that would take you out behind the barn.. We take care of our own we dont need the gov protecting us or telling us how to live... ( When I was 4 years old it was drilled into my very soul by my grandpa a man does not lay a whip on a horse kick or abuse any stock and never never never ever abuses a woman.)

The number one call that cops are afraid of is domestic violence. Lets pass some more laws that try to control and change everybodys drinking habits. Lets put some more restrictions on the bars and patrons..They wonder why we have a major problem with domestic violence... It's sort of obvious to me and the rest of us that are old enough to remember this country before they drug it down with their greed. Lets go in the bars and arrest them it can be done in the name of public safety and will add to the coffers. Some more laws and spending money on enforcement and social studies ought to do it. You fokes got this old vet riled again...Quit worrying about all the smoke screens abortion national security drugs sex guns smoking and pay attention to what they are really doing to your freedoms...Quit worrying about the war over there and worry about the war that will take place here.

READ ON:
Herald-Whig Staff Writer

Quincy Police Chief Rob Copley said a Supreme Court ruling this week that says police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away is "confusing," but won't impact domestic violence cases.

Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man's wife invited them in. The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.

"If it's a situation where it's evident it's a domestic case and he doesn't want us in but she does, we are going in," Copley said. "If it's for something else involving a seizure, that's going to cause us some concern based on the ruling.

"We may need to get some legal opinions before going through the door."

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches covers a scenario when one home occupant wants to allow a search and another occupant does not.

The ruling by Justice David H. Souter stopped short of fully answering that question — saying only that in the Georgia case it was clear that Scott Fitz Randolph was at the door and objected to the officers entry.

Quincy attorney Don Heck said "it's probably a good law, but it's probably being taken out of context" when it comes to criminal searches and seizures.

"Who has the right to control the situation, and how can you as a guest in my home tell somebody they can't come in?" Heck said. "It could cause more problems logistically for the court system."

In Canada, officers may enter without warrant a dwelling place to investigate a domestic a domestic dispute.  Thay cannot conduct a search for anything, however, they can secure the premises while a warrant is issued, probable cause of course is needed.  Further an officer must arrest the offender, if there is evidence of domestic violence, whether the victim wants to lay charges or not.  There is no descretion is this case.  So if hubby give wifey a black eye or vice versa, the offender is arrested and taken to jail and charged.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

OK, here is an article that goes into more detail including reasoning for the judges decisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High court confirms limits on warrantless police searches
Charles Lane, Washington Post

Thursday, March 23, 2006
Washington -- The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers Wednesday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both partners present agree to let them in.

The 5-3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.

The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, but it still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had previously said police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together. Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases.

Justice David Souter's majority opinion said the consent of one partner is inadequate because of "widely shared social expectations" that adults living together each have veto power over who can enter their living space. That makes a warrantless search based on only one partner's consent "unreasonable" and, therefore, unconstitutional.

"(T)here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders," Souter wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing his first dissent since joining the court in October, said the ruling's cost would be great, especially in domestic disputes.

Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or absent. Those rulings were unchanged by Wednesday's decision.

Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts argued.

"The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.

Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying police still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner is truly in danger.

"(T)his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists."

Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that "the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion that said his decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that Souter's analysis applies to cases such as this one, in which police were searching for evidence of a crime, rather than intervening in a violent dispute.

The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived, she told them where to find his cocaine. An officer asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house. He refused, but she said yes -- and led them to a straw covered in cocaine crystals. Scott Randolph was arrested and indicted for cocaine possession.

Georgia's Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the evidence should be suppressed, because it was gathered without a warrant.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Justice Samuel Alito did not vote because he was not yet on the court in November, when the case was argued.

The main argument between Souter and Roberts was accompanied by a skirmish between Stevens and Scalia, who used the case as an opportunity to make points in the court's long-running dispute over Scalia's view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the Framers' original intent.

In a brief concurring opinion, Stevens noted that the court's ruling was based on the concept that neither a husband nor a wife is "master" of the house in the eyes of the law.

But at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, he wrote, only a husband's consent or objection would have been taken into account. Thus, he wrote, "this case illustrates why even the most dedicated adherent to an approach ... that places primary reliance on a search for original understanding would recognize the relevance of changes in our society."

Scalia fired back at "Justice Stevens' 'attempted critique' of originalism," arguing that the ruling is unlikely to benefit women.

"Given the usual patterns of domestic violence," he wrote, "how often can police be expected to encounter the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home while a woman simultaneously demands they stay out?"
The case is Georgia vs. Randolph, No. 04-1067.

Geez....... can't ya all talk about something that isn't so depressing?  :no:

I come here usually when I need a "pick me up"..... and lately, this place is getting to be WAY too serious.

(not that I'm bashing your subject Don... not at all...) Maybe, I guess........ I could just keep my little arse out of here if it depresses me, huh?

Yah- good idea Charm.  :yes:

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥

Who's Charm??  

_________________
[glow=white][scroll]Live, laugh, and love today--just in case tomorrow doesn't make it[/scroll][/glow]

A pick me up ?

You could talk about the domestic stuff we male victims have been known to pay for.. You know,  when the woman dresses up as a cop, and handcuff's the guy hoisting him feet first up to the ceiling of the dungeon.. Yet I won't threadjack this, and turn it into a BDSM "alternative" styles event. I already discussed wedgies while swinging from the flagpole in a different thread.  I don't want people to get the idea I get strange thoughts 'n stuff

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Yeah, well....... my name slips out that way at times, . That's who I am to most of my family..... rarely ever am I called "Charmin"....... course, my parents being old southerners, it's generally "Charmin Lynn" with them. But my siblings...... usually call me- simply "Charm". And people- who are close friends- seem to pick that up too.

But as to "who she is".... haha, I tell ya what Dave.... I wish I knew the answer to THAT one.  :no:  Ya want to come out and figure it out for me?  :D

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥

Well, we seem to learn more about you every day  

I take it the "disguise" is no longer necessary?

_________________
[glow=white][scroll]Live, laugh, and love today--just in case tomorrow doesn't make it[/scroll][/glow]

Steven, no fair......... I would like to hear the REST of that story. Don't make me use my imagination... my mind is out of commission today.  :(




Ummmm...... Guys? Should we tell him? haha

Just kidding Steven, we all know how "normal" yer thoughts are.  :yes:

(nod your HEADS guys.... dang it)

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥

Uh oh!  Then Lonnie isn't family or friend because he calls you Charmin.  :shock:  LOL

No, wrong again Don......... I believe his latest pet name for me is BiTtCh.  :D

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥

I haven't been over there in a long time.  But I'm sure he means that in the nicest endearing sense of the word!  

I have to agree with this.  About two years ago I was playing with a phone that someone gave me, and unbeknownst to me, one of the preset's that I inadvertently hit was 911.  The cops called, and when I said everythings fine, I hit a preset by accident.  They asked me the following line..  "Are you sure" ?  Meaning if someone was holding me up at gunpoint, it's likely I wouldn't be able to consent... Now while this is a slightly different case... There ARE in fact instances when a person is having a tough time,  needs emergency help, and might not readily consent to allowing a person into their home...

What if I'm a thief in someones home.  The cops knock on the door, and I say "I'm Mr. Neddlebladtt, everything is fine, go away" ?  How can they be sure who's consenting and who isn't in an emergency situation ?  THings can get confusing.. SOMETIMES, when there is clearly an emergency situation... discretion is necessary. Especially if it's evident someone is suffering.  I haven't had the chance to give this topic alot of thought yet,  but I agree with Don.. This can lean towards the opposite end of the spectrum... Where the police are simply prevented from doing a job.  Yet I agree with Dave too. I think we both agree in certain cases however, the rules must change, meaning a situation of an emergent nature.. If I am holding someone hostage in my home, have kidnapped someone, etc...  If there's a eminent danger generating from a unit in a multidwelling complex... Some discretion often must be allowed IMHO..There are clearly instances when a person obviously would not consent to allowing the cops into their home, often for obvious reasons.  JMO, haven't given this alot of thought yet.

This can REALLY backfire too on the strict "constitutionalists".  If they are away, have a pet in the home,  and something happens such as a gas leak... I'm sure they would wish the cops saved their pet and broke in to do-so assuming they forget to sign a waiver and leave it with the police....

Don, any idea if this is across the board entering a person's home ?  Or just in the case of search, and domestic ?  What if a person is away, and something is wrong with a pet ? etc... Just cases of how a Good Sumaritan law can help save ALOT of grief assuming a neighbor, or the cops broke into my home in an emergency situation for my own interest... How not everything all/none works in our culture...

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Having been a victim of Domestice Violence...This just really rubbs me the wrong way... I am so mad right now I could just spit...So I won't be discussing this with you all...

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

Yeah, you're right, I'm SURE he does.  :roll:  LOL

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥

Totally understood Sharon. Too many people like you around too. That's why they need to do something MORE to stop this kinda stuff..... not find a "legal reason"" to ignore it. But then again..... most of the decision makers are "men".

_________________
♥ Laugh your heart out, dance in the rain. Cherish the memories, ignore the pain. Love and learn, forget and forgive. Because you only have one life to live. ♥