--- In child_neglect_abuse@yahoogroups.com, "Connecticut DCF Watch"
<ctdcfwatch@...> wrote:
>
> Police and DCF must have the consent of both parents or parties to
enter a home. If one parent or party denies entry, the police and
DCF can't enter based on the consenting party but must yield to the
non-consenting party. All occupants must give consent.
>
> Thomas Dutkiewicz, President, Connecticut DCF Watch
> 860-833-4127
>
>
>
> NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos &
Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
>
> High Court Trims Police Power to Search Homes
>
> By Charles Lane
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Thursday, March 23, 2006; A01
>
>
> The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling
that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's
home unless both partners present agree to let them in.
>
> The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices.
The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy
rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police
efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often
women.
>
> The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court but
still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most
other lower federal and state courts had previously said that police
could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.
>
> Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in
such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives, or boyfriends and
girlfriends, keep police busy around the country; in the District,
almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in
2000 involved alleged domestic violence.
>
> Justice David H. Souter's majority opinion said that the consent of
one partner is not enough, because of "widely shared social
expectations" that adults living together each have veto power over
who can come into their shared living space. That makes a warrantless
search based on only one partner's consent "unreasonable" and,
therefore, unconstitutional.
>
> "[T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally
has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of
another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or
invitations to outsiders," Souter wrote.
>
> Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since
joining the court in October, said the ruling's "cost" would
be "great," especially in domestic dispute situations.
>
> Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court
had previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house
with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or
absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday's decision.
>
> Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant has
surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth
Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts noted.
>
> "The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to
assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted
the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.
>
> But Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying that the
police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one
partner was truly in danger.
>
> "[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to
protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "No question has been
raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to
enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so
long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists."
>
> Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that "the centuries of
special protection for the privacy of the home are over."
>
> Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony
M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
>
> Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion noting that his
decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that Souter's
analysis applies to cases such as this one, Georgia v. Randolph , No.
04-1607, in which the police were searching for evidence of a crime,
rather than intervening in a violent dispute.
>
> "[T]oday's decision will not adversely affect ordinary law
enforcement practices," Breyer wrote.
>
> The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home
of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived,
she told them where they could find his cocaine. An officer asked
Scott Randolph for permission to search the house. He refused, but
Janet Randolph said yes -- and led them to a straw covered in cocaine
crystals. Scott Randolph was arrested and indicted on charges of
cocaine possession.
>
> Georgia's Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the evidence should
be suppressed because it was gathered without a warrant.
>
> Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Justice
Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not vote because he was not yet on the court
in November, when the case was argued.
>
> The main battle between Souter and Roberts was accompanied by a
skirmish between Stevens and Scalia, who used the case as an
opportunity to make points in the court's long-running dispute over
Scalia's view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of
the Framers' original intent.
>
> In a brief concurring opinion, Stevens noted that the court's
ruling was based on the concept that neither a husband nor a wife
is "master" of the house in the eyes of the law. But at the time the
Bill of Rights was drafted, he wrote, only a husband's consent or
objection would have been taken into account.
>
> Thus, he wrote, "this case illustrates why even the most dedicated
adherent to an approach . . . that places primary reliance on a
search for original understanding would recognize the relevance of
changes in our society."
>
> Scalia fired back at "Justice Stevens' 'attempted critique' of
originalism,' " arguing that the court's ruling would probably not
benefit women.
>
> "Given the usual patterns of domestic violence," he noted, "how
often can police be expected to encounter the situation in which a
man urges them to enter the home while a woman simultaneously demands
they stay out?"
>
> © 2006 The Washington Post Company
>
>
>
> What state is this in and is it the same for all states cause if it
is i need to know.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>