Keystone Kops, Keystone State.

[5.56NATO]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled recently that police are allowed to search vehicles without a warrant. Meanwhile, the state General Assembly is advancing a bill to grant police authority to arrest those with “secret compartments” in their vehicles.

In a 4 to 2 decision weeks ago, the state Supreme Court decided that police could conduct searches of vehicles based solely on probable cause, or an officer’s reasonable belief that the vehicle contained illegal goods or evidence of a crime. The new standard puts the state in line with the federal law, which allows warrantless searches of vehicles.

Officers in the Keystone State were previously required to obtain a warrant prior to searching a vehicle unless the car’s owner gave consent for the search.

Writing for the majority in the ruling, Justice Seamus McCaffery said the probable-cause requirement for a search is “a strong and sufficient safeguard against illegal searches,” and will ensure that Pennsylvania officers adhere to a "uniform standard for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, applicable in federal and state court, to avoid unnecessary confusion, conflict and inconsistency in this often-litigated area."

Justice Debra McCloskey Todd, in a dissenting opinion, said the court was “eviscerating” longtime privacy protections by embracing the “diluted federal automobile exemption.”

The majority decision "heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright,” Justice Todd added.
http://rt.com/usa/160896-pennsylvania-car-search-warrant/

[5.56NATO]

And in the rest of the US:

Supreme Court hands police more power to conduct warrantless house searches
The US Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises.

With its 6 to 3 decision in Fernandez v. California on Tuesday, the Court sided with law enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.

In 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department sought suspect Walter Fernandez, believed to have stabbed someone in a violent gang robbery. When police first arrived at the suspect’s home, they heard yelling and screaming before Fernandez’s live-in girlfriend Roxanne Rojas answered the door, appearing “freshly bruised and bloody,” and with an infant in hand, according to argument recap by SCOTUSblog.

Fernandez was spotted by police, and said, “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.” Yet police arrested him on charges of domestic violence. Later, once Fernandez was out of the home, police asked Rojas for permission to conduct a search, which yielded evidence implicating Fernandez in the robbery.

The Court’s decision justified the police actions, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority’s position.

“A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,” Alito wrote. He added that “denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence.”

Alito was joined in the majority by Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – joined in the minority by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, marking a gender divide among the Justices in the case – wrote the dissenting opinion, calling the decision a blow to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

“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.”
http://rt.com/usa/police-warrantless-search-permission-744/

[Helen Keller]

إن شاء الله

[El Jefe]

Drip, drip, drip............