SCOTUSBlog has a good, thorough post on today's ruling in Georgia v. Randolph [PDF], in which the Supreme Court held that one person may block a (warrantless) search of a shared dwelling, even if the other resident consents—but only if the person who objects is there at the door. That is, one supposes, an improvement over the previous standard, which was that one person's consent was enough even when the other resident objected, but it does seem to make citizens' "reasonable expectation of privacy" depend in a fairly arbitrary way on whether they happen to be around (and, for that matter, awake and at the door) when the cops come knocking. Oddly, the dissent by Chief Justice Roberts notes this problematic arbitrariness, but instead of concluding that consent should be actively sought from the actual target of the search rather than a roommate, suggests that cohabiting automatically cedes to the roommate discretion over where your "reasonable expectation of privacy" ends, even in the face of active objections. But then, given Roberts' record of finding an excuse for a search whenever possible, that shouldn't come as much surprise.
The FBI Returned This Innocent Couple's Safe Deposit Box. It Refuses To Give Back Many Others—and Is Trying To Seize $85 Million in Cash.
"It makes me feel like the government is preying on the vulnerable and the weak to line their own pockets."
Indiana Said the Government Should Be Able To Take Everything You Own if You Commit a Drug Crime. The State Supreme Court Wasn't Having It.
After eight years, Tyson Timbs finally gets to keep his Land Rover—once and for all.
Why is it so hard for him to just admit he was wrong?
The FBI Took Their Safe Deposit Box and Everything Inside It. Two Months Later, They're Still Waiting for It To Be Returned.
"When you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't be subjected to an investigation," says Paul Snitko, whose box was seized in a March 22 FBI raid of a Beverly Hills business.