SCOTUS will decide if police can enter a home and seize guns without a warrant

[philip964]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstm ... a-warrant/

[srothstein]

I predict that SCOTUS will uphold the police in this case. The police will argue that the search was consensual by the wife who is a co-resident with full access to any part of the property. It has long been held that the police are allowed to lie to people and I doubt that it will negate her consent as this article claims (and probably as the plaintiffs lawyer claim also). A few years back, SCOTUS decided a case where the wife's consent was limited by his being present and saying no at the time, but that was the first time they limited a consent of that type.

What is interesting to me is that they are now calling the original case a community caretaking case and trying to use it as a precedent. I have not read that case, but I was always taught that police can do an inventory of any vehicle being impounded to prevent fraudulent claims later of missing property which they would then be liable for. In fact, I was taught that if I impounded the car for any reason I could do this, but if i were to leave the car parked on the street at the owner's request (which we did fairly often), then he was assuming the responsibility and I had no authority to search the car based on the potential false claims.

I did have fun with one false claim while I was on San Antonio PD. A suspect ran from the military police at Camp Bullis one night. I assisted them in getting the car stopped on loop 1604. We then turned the whole thing over to the MPs to handle. The suspect was a civilian. He later filed a claim that he was missing a $1,000 dollar bill (not just a thousand dollars, but a real single bill) from the briefcase that had been left in the car when it was impounded. I told IA that I just assisted in the stop and that the MPs did any inventory and impounding of the car. They referred his claim to CID and the FBI to handle. While they appreciated our assistance, they did not appreciate his false claim. They filed federal charges on him for it.

[Soccerdad1995]

I predict that SCOTUS will uphold the police in this case. The police will argue that the search was consensual by the wife who is a co-resident with full access to any part of the property. It has long been held that the police are allowed to lie to people and I doubt that it will negate her consent as this article claims (and probably as the plaintiffs lawyer claim also). A few years back, SCOTUS decided a case where the wife's consent was limited by his being present and saying no at the time, but that was the first time they limited a consent of that type.

What is interesting to me is that they are now calling the original case a community caretaking case and trying to use it as a precedent. I have not read that case, but I was always taught that police can do an inventory of any vehicle being impounded to prevent fraudulent claims later of missing property which they would then be liable for. In fact, I was taught that if I impounded the car for any reason I could do this, but if i were to leave the car parked on the street at the owner's request (which we did fairly often), then he was assuming the responsibility and I had no authority to search the car based on the potential false claims.

I did have fun with one false claim while I was on San Antonio PD. A suspect ran from the military police at Camp Bullis one night. I assisted them in getting the car stopped on loop 1604. We then turned the whole thing over to the MPs to handle. The suspect was a civilian. He later filed a claim that he was missing a $1,000 dollar bill (not just a thousand dollars, but a real single bill) from the briefcase that had been left in the car when it was impounded. I told IA that I just assisted in the stop and that the MPs did any inventory and impounding of the car. They referred his claim to CID and the FBI to handle. While they appreciated our assistance, they did not appreciate his false claim. They filed federal charges on him for it.

I agree in general with the part I bolded, but in this case the lie by the police was that the husband had already given consent for the search. So when they then asked the wife for the same consent, she would reasonably believe that she was not in fact changing the situation by agreeing. In other words, she wasn't actually "giving" consent if the police already had consent. She was at best affirming that she also was good with the search in addition to her husband.

This does bring up a good point on rehearsals to have with your wife, kids, and other family members on what to say if the police ask them questions. Specifically, even if the LEO tells my wife that I gave consent for a search before they took me away from there, she should still just keep repeating "I do not consent to any searches, please leave my property now". Preferably getting the interaction on video.

[cirus]

I could care less what the scotus decides