Supreme Court Ruled The 4th Amendment No Longer Applies to Police.

The US Supreme Court (USSC) has ruled another devastating blow against freedom and the 4th Amendment, including the Bill of Rights.

The ruling made by the US Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 25, 2014) says 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. In other words, the US Supreme Court has ruled that police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one of the occupants agrees to the search.

In 2009, Walter Fernandez, a Los Angeles resident, was arrested and removed from his residence. During the incident, Fernandez refused police entry into his home as a violation of his 4th Amendment rights because the officers did not have a warrant.

Once Fernandez was in custody, the police returned to his residence and searched anyway. Their findings became evidence in the prosecutor’s case against Fernandez.

Based on the findings and previous rulings in Fernandez’ case, the USSC ruled that the police had a lawful right to search his home and Fernandez was in the wrong in having prevented that police from doing so during his arrest.

Justice Samuel Ailto, author of the decision, explained that: “A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant. Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application.”

Dissenting Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote that the court was at fault for having a weak requirement for obtaining a search warrant.

Ginsberg pointed out: “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it.”

23 Responses to Supreme Court Ruled The 4th Amendment No Longer Applies to Police.

  1. Judith Ann Hitt says:

    We, the People shall remove these idiots as well. This is unconstitutional. We the People are reclaiming our government. All the tyrants shall go including those who ignored our constitutional rights.

    • jon smith says:

      That’s right.rise up and unite all who believe in Americas freedom our fore fathers did not die for nothing and I’m prepared the same. Time to topple this freedom eating war machine
      That has run wild with greed and power for far too long.
      Rebel. Revolt. is duty and is stated in the yourselves Americans?

    • HereWeGoAgain says:

      Judith, I really wish that you were right. But look around you. Do you see anyone rioting in the streets? Me neither. Sadly, Americans have become too lazy and/or complacent to protest. I think everyone has finally been worn down. I think everyone, in light of the never ending assault on their freedoms from the highest office down to the local level, has gotten so used to the big red, white and blue d**k shoved up their a$$e$ every single day, that they’ve just given up. I would be a good example. I gripe about it all the time, write on message boards like this one and really, it ruins my day every time I get all in a rage. And no one does anything. Nothing changes. And those people we’ve elected to protect our Constitution, our rights and our way of life look the other way when the votes are taken. There has to be some reason each of our congressmen votes to take our rights away. I can only assume it’s because they’re all in on it. What hope have we got? I mean, really? The playing field is tilted and those in charge can change the rules any time we get close to some small victory. I hate to say it, but the situation IS hopeless. Might as well sit home, get drunk and kick the dog.

  2. jan elijah says:

    The people of America can not trust the government to do an honest job. They care nothing for the people they have sworn to serve!! We must stand up and make our voices heard!! Or they will destroy us!! That’s what they want to do. We must protect our freedoms af all costs!!!

  3. joe says:

    time to get rid of the communists sitting on our court

  4. Dale A. Wellman says:

    I would have to research the arguments presented to understand this decision. My first impression is: they are using the “arrest” of an occupant as “Probable Cause” to search without consent. If this is true then all arrests will give police probable cause to search anytime, anyplace and anywhere the police wish: as long as there is some tenuous basis of cause connected to the arrest.

    • Dale A. Wellman says:

      The article above does not discuss the other occupants consent for the police to search the premises. That consent came after a refusal by the arrestee to consent to a search.
      It seems the police may now keep coming back to your home, time after time after time, until they acquire consent from some other occupant.
      I do not see probable cause for the second search.
      Even more troubling: I see no reason for the Police to return to the mans home at all. If the police were worried about the occupants health and safety send somebody other then police: their assistance has been given and they are now intruding where they were not wanted and do not belong.
      Were the police called there? No, the police went there of their own volition.
      Was the occupant at the time of the second visit pressured to consent to the search. Yes, she was pressured to consent. (footnote 5 in the decision)

  5. jscusmc69 says:

    SCOTUS is nothing but an EXTENSION of the TRASH WE HAVE in OUR HOUSE–and THESE TRASH can and will be removed TO!

  6. Flyer1299 says:

    That article is not very clear in what was done. Mere arrest is not probable cause to search a residence. The occupant who was arrested said no. Another legitimate occupant later said yes so a search was conducted. The other occupant could have just a easily said no and a warrant would have been necessary with probable cause required for it to be issued. None needed with permission. The court just maid out who can give consent. For example, you call police to remove an unwanted house guest, you order the guest out, your spouse gives them permission to stay. Who has the superior right since you both live there? The court just defined who can give consent. No one is going after the 4th amendment here. Permission was obtained for that search. The court just laid out who could give that permission and defined it. If no warrant exists and you say no to a search, without legitimate probable cause, it’s not going to take place in violation of the 4th.

    • Dave says:

      The problem here is that one person does not have the right to give up another persons rights. Since evidence gathered may be against the person who refused the search. You see the problem here?

      At best one should have complete immunity from any evidence collected to be used against the one who refused to grant consent.

      Also in order to accept consent the cops would first need to be sure the person giving consent actually has the right to. Where does it end when the neighbor is at the house and says okay to search?

      This is why the 4th. is there. Not only do they need probable cause to get a warrant in in the fist place but they have to also have and be able to produce a signed affidavit for the warrant at the time of the search. More traitors sitting on the bench and they bring dis-honor to the court system.

    • Toni says:

      Where have you been living, under a rock? The police, court system and political machines ( both main parties ) have been trampling our rights as Americans for decades. Wake up and smell the tyranny!!!

  7. Berry obama says:

    How to loose your House!

    Your daughter invites her drug dealing boyfriend over. You come home and find him there shooting up cocaine. You tell him to leave. A fight breaks out. Your daughter calls the police. The police come and you tell them they can’t come in without a warrant because you know there are drugs in your house. Her boyfriend (an occupant) says it’s O.K. To come in and states you were shooting up the drugs. You daughter loves him and protects her boyfriend and agrees. You get arrested and later go to prison for four years only to come home and find you wife filed for divorce and the police have seised your home and sold it for court costs. The only good news is you have a 4year old grand child who’s father was the drug dealer but the child is addicted to crack. Your now pregnant daughter arrives at your front door and wants to
    live with you in your studio apartment. All because the Supreme Court ruled the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply!” ~ the American Patriot…

    • Jim says:

      Your argument is absurd. Occupant does not mean visitor, it means the lawful resident.

      • Toni says:

        Do you think that in this scenario they are going to go to the trouble to find out if the person giving them permission actually lives there, or are they more likely to think that it is almost as troublesome as getting a legal warrant and going in anyway because the daughter also agreed to the search. There are some police officers who are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble they think that just because they have a badge they have the right to run over our rights. Pull your head out of the sand otherwise your butt will be a good target.

      • Jim Corbitt says:

        What about property rights? Who owns the property is the one who decides! No one in my family has a right without my express permission do anything with what is legally mine! If my wife’s name is on the title then so be it and if not she has no standing to consent to anything.GET A WARRANT!

  8. Mike says:

    Just a new way to justify shooting pigs in my opinion.

  9. Jimbo says:


  10. Ed Edwards says:

    Stop complaining and start reacting. Return common law grand jury to the people. The only way to get back to the constitution without a revolution.

    • jon smith says:

      If a revaluation is even being mentioned then something must be array in our be it its time for a change and I don’t mean an Obama change..

  11. Abby says:

    The only reason he was being arrested was because he did not want them to search him home without a warrant, then to say they had a right to search because he was being arrested for not allowing them in is just upside down and totally against everything we have always known in the USA. Unbelievable, I can’t wait for all these changes to come back and bite all the liberals and democrats in the ass.

  12. meredith says:

    what the H***!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *