LIVE AS IF YOU WERE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU WERE TO LIVE FOREVER (GANDHI).
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Question of the Week No. 13
A home may be searched without a warrant if consent is given. Should police be allowed to conduct a warrantless search if one resident, the wife, consents, but the other resident, the husband objects?
I would say yes in the case of husband and wife, but I would say no in the case of roommates. Husband and wife are legally bonded together so I think their ability to consent to their home being searched should also be a legal bond. However, if a roommate were to allow a home to be searched on behalf of another roommate, I do not think that is okay, considering there is no legal promise between roommates.
I would say no, a search should not be conducted if the residents disagree. To me, a home is a personal place of refuge. Having someone search a home for whatever reason allows the searcher to private, intimate details of a person's life and because of the sensitive nature of a home I say that both parties have to consent before a warrantless search is conducted. If they disagree then a warrant should be required thus allowing the resident that does not consent to hold on to his/her privacy rights.
I agree with Anne in that, if one member of some legal union consents, then the search should be allowed. If two people are married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that their privacy rights are shared, because of a mutual disclosure of private information. By extension, I think that it would be alright for one member to relinquish this privacy to law enforcement. However, in the case of people just living together, roommates or otherwise, I think that there often isn't shared privacy between the inhabitants, and they have no right to relinquish another person's privacy. If a roommate lets law enforcement into the dwelling, I think it would be alright to search common areas, as well as the area specific to that roommate, but searching anywhere else shouldn't be allowed.
I tend to agree that an individual should only be able to relinquish their own privacy rights, and those rights would not extend to non-familial cohabitants. In the case of today's question, one partner can give adequate consent for the police to not be required to obtain a warrant. Many things become legally shared when two people get married, and I feel that privacy does not fall outside of this category.
Legally, I agree with what has been said. I think that in cases of marriage and other cohabitation, it can be kind of implied that privacy rights are shared. If one party gives consent, I imagine that it would be enough regardless of what the other party says. I wonder about the specifics of who OWNS the house or whose name would be on the lease of a renter. I have to imagine if it is one person who owns or one person's name on the lease, that their decision overrides the others.
Personally, I think it should not be allowed. I would argue that both individuals have the right to have their own independent decisions. I would also be pretty upset if for example I had a roommate that didn't know his/her rights and let the police in without a warrant and I ended up getting the butt end of the interaction. I think that the police SHOULD need to get consent from all present parties. If there was only one person home who gave consent, the other person's opinion shouldn't matter.
I have mixed thoughts on this topic. On one hand, there is the legal contract between husband and wife, and they share some rights with each other, including the consenting for one another in certain situations. On the other hand, they are still separate people and should have the ability to disagree and not be overridden by the other. I agree with Michael that the police should need consent from all present parties, but realistically, only the consent of one of the married couple is needed.
I think that the default should be upholding the 4th amendment. Complete consent should be required to over throw warrant regulations. The same should be true of roommates but parents should be able to consent on the part of their minor children.
I think that if there is a conflict (that is, both parties disagreeing with each other while communicating with the police) then the police should not be allowed to enter. Otherwise, if one party consents, then the police should be allowed access. Except possibly in cases where the roommates have a pre-existing agreed upon policy or if there is a closed door that the person allowing the police in the house doesn't have jurisdiction over. What I mean is a roommate couldn't allow access to a different roommate's bedroom.
I would say no, if one person doesn't want to be searched and doesn't give consent to the police to search their house, then no search should be performed. Since we are on a ask first then search basis and no search then ask, I would say that we should hold up the person who doesn't agree to be searched. I could see that if only the wife or the husband were there in the house, and they consent to be searched, then it's ok. But it both of them were to answer the door and only one agree, then no search should be performed.
My thoughts seem to align with a lot of what has been said previously. In the case of room mates, I think that there needs to be consent from all parties. I especially feel this way if there are separate leases. The apartment complex I live in, each person in the apartment has their own lease. In this case, I think that it would be okay for an individual to consent to have their room searched, but not their room mates. In the case of a married couple, I can see both sides. I do think that the legal bond between them could be enough to allow for one person to concent for both, but I also see Mary's point about the fourth amendment and I also see how, while legally bound, people still have individual accountability in the sight of the law (ie. we don't get charged for a spouse's felony).
My thoughts seem to align with a lot of what has been said previously. In the case of room mates, I think that there needs to be consent from all parties. I especially feel this way if there are separate leases. The apartment complex I live in, each person in the apartment has their own lease. In this case, I think that it would be okay for an individual to consent to have their room searched, but not their room mates. In the case of a married couple, I can see both sides. I do think that the legal bond between them could be enough to allow for one person to concent for both, but I also see Mary's point about the fourth amendment and I also see how, while legally bound, people still have individual accountability in the sight of the law (ie. we don't get charged for a spouse's felony).
I would say yes in the case of husband and wife, but I would say no in the case of roommates. Husband and wife are legally bonded together so I think their ability to consent to their home being searched should also be a legal bond. However, if a roommate were to allow a home to be searched on behalf of another roommate, I do not think that is okay, considering there is no legal promise between roommates.
ReplyDeleteI would say no, a search should not be conducted if the residents disagree. To me, a home is a personal place of refuge. Having someone search a home for whatever reason allows the searcher to private, intimate details of a person's life and because of the sensitive nature of a home I say that both parties have to consent before a warrantless search is conducted. If they disagree then a warrant should be required thus allowing the resident that does not consent to hold on to his/her privacy rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anne in that, if one member of some legal union consents, then the search should be allowed. If two people are married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that their privacy rights are shared, because of a mutual disclosure of private information. By extension, I think that it would be alright for one member to relinquish this privacy to law enforcement. However, in the case of people just living together, roommates or otherwise, I think that there often isn't shared privacy between the inhabitants, and they have no right to relinquish another person's privacy. If a roommate lets law enforcement into the dwelling, I think it would be alright to search common areas, as well as the area specific to that roommate, but searching anywhere else shouldn't be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree that an individual should only be able to relinquish their own privacy rights, and those rights would not extend to non-familial cohabitants. In the case of today's question, one partner can give adequate consent for the police to not be required to obtain a warrant. Many things become legally shared when two people get married, and I feel that privacy does not fall outside of this category.
ReplyDeleteLegally, I agree with what has been said. I think that in cases of marriage and other cohabitation, it can be kind of implied that privacy rights are shared. If one party gives consent, I imagine that it would be enough regardless of what the other party says. I wonder about the specifics of who OWNS the house or whose name would be on the lease of a renter. I have to imagine if it is one person who owns or one person's name on the lease, that their decision overrides the others.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it should not be allowed. I would argue that both individuals have the right to have their own independent decisions. I would also be pretty upset if for example I had a roommate that didn't know his/her rights and let the police in without a warrant and I ended up getting the butt end of the interaction. I think that the police SHOULD need to get consent from all present parties. If there was only one person home who gave consent, the other person's opinion shouldn't matter.
I have mixed thoughts on this topic. On one hand, there is the legal contract between husband and wife, and they share some rights with each other, including the consenting for one another in certain situations. On the other hand, they are still separate people and should have the ability to disagree and not be overridden by the other. I agree with Michael that the police should need consent from all present parties, but realistically, only the consent of one of the married couple is needed.
ReplyDeleteI think that the default should be upholding the 4th amendment. Complete consent should be required to over throw warrant regulations. The same should be true of roommates but parents should be able to consent on the part of their minor children.
ReplyDeleteI think that if there is a conflict (that is, both parties disagreeing with each other while communicating with the police) then the police should not be allowed to enter. Otherwise, if one party consents, then the police should be allowed access. Except possibly in cases where the roommates have a pre-existing agreed upon policy or if there is a closed door that the person allowing the police in the house doesn't have jurisdiction over. What I mean is a roommate couldn't allow access to a different roommate's bedroom.
ReplyDeleteI would say no, if one person doesn't want to be searched and doesn't give consent to the police to search their house, then no search should be performed. Since we are on a ask first then search basis and no search then ask, I would say that we should hold up the person who doesn't agree to be searched. I could see that if only the wife or the husband were there in the house, and they consent to be searched, then it's ok. But it both of them were to answer the door and only one agree, then no search should be performed.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts seem to align with a lot of what has been said previously. In the case of room mates, I think that there needs to be consent from all parties. I especially feel this way if there are separate leases. The apartment complex I live in, each person in the apartment has their own lease. In this case, I think that it would be okay for an individual to consent to have their room searched, but not their room mates. In the case of a married couple, I can see both sides. I do think that the legal bond between them could be enough to allow for one person to concent for both, but I also see Mary's point about the fourth amendment and I also see how, while legally bound, people still have individual accountability in the sight of the law (ie. we don't get charged for a spouse's felony).
ReplyDeleteSo, is that a "yes" or a "no" to the question asked?
DeleteMy thoughts seem to align with a lot of what has been said previously. In the case of room mates, I think that there needs to be consent from all parties. I especially feel this way if there are separate leases. The apartment complex I live in, each person in the apartment has their own lease. In this case, I think that it would be okay for an individual to consent to have their room searched, but not their room mates. In the case of a married couple, I can see both sides. I do think that the legal bond between them could be enough to allow for one person to concent for both, but I also see Mary's point about the fourth amendment and I also see how, while legally bound, people still have individual accountability in the sight of the law (ie. we don't get charged for a spouse's felony).
ReplyDelete