SCOTUS not in fact as evil as some here have suggested
- From: wollman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Garrett Wollman)
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:48:25 +0000 (UTC)
In Georgia v. Randolph, the Court today decided that if two occupants
of a home disagree about submitting to a voluntary search, the police
are to interpret the disagreement as lack of consent. Students of
comparative law may be interested in the following statement from John
Paul Stevens's concurrence:
At least since 1604 it has been settled that in the absence of
exigent circumstances, a government agent has no right to enter a
"house" or "castle" unless authorized to do so by a valid
warrant. See Semayne's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194
(K.B.).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wollman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SCOTUS not in fact as evil as some here have suggested
- From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
- Re: SCOTUS not in fact as evil as some here have suggested
- From: Mike Andrews
- Re: SCOTUS not in fact as evil as some here have suggested
- Prev by Date: Re: Well, that _was_ neat!
- Next by Date: Re: SCOTUS not in fact as evil as some here have suggested
- Previous by thread: Recovery by Fun Electric Things
- Next by thread: Re: SCOTUS not in fact as evil as some here have suggested
- Index(es):