What's Good for Two Should Be Good for Two Hundred Million
---
The Supreme Court today upheld a rudimentary legal concept: one person cannot waive the rights of another --
Now this is of course a Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure case, and in some respects it's a limp-wristed decision (the police will now simply manipulate the circumstances whenever possible to get the potential objecting resident "away from the door").
But still, the underlying bedrock principle has been vindicated: one person may not waive the rights of another.
Something that the apologists for unbridled majoritarianism might want to keep in mind when they claim that rights should be subject to majority vote. There are some lines that the police — and the "will of the majority" — should simply not be allowed to cross.
There are six different opinions — the ruling, two concurrences and three dissents. SCOTUSblog has all the links.
POST SCRIPT: Read Justice Stevens' two-page concurrence smacking down Justice Scalia's "original meaning" brand of interpretation (Scalia responds to Stevens here). Is Stevens also suggesting that there should be a sort of "Miranda warning" for consent searches? "You have the right to refuse me entry, since I do not have a warrant..." I could certainly live with such a requirement!
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 on Wednesday that it is unconstitutional for police without a warrant to search a home, if two occupants are present at the time and one consents but the other objects. The search may not go forward in the face of that objection, but the occupant must be present to have the objection count, the Court said in a decision written by Justice David H. Souter.The case is Georgia v. Randolph (04-1067). I blogged about it previously.
Now this is of course a Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure case, and in some respects it's a limp-wristed decision (the police will now simply manipulate the circumstances whenever possible to get the potential objecting resident "away from the door").
But still, the underlying bedrock principle has been vindicated: one person may not waive the rights of another.
Something that the apologists for unbridled majoritarianism might want to keep in mind when they claim that rights should be subject to majority vote. There are some lines that the police — and the "will of the majority" — should simply not be allowed to cross.
There are six different opinions — the ruling, two concurrences and three dissents. SCOTUSblog has all the links.
POST SCRIPT: Read Justice Stevens' two-page concurrence smacking down Justice Scalia's "original meaning" brand of interpretation (Scalia responds to Stevens here). Is Stevens also suggesting that there should be a sort of "Miranda warning" for consent searches? "You have the right to refuse me entry, since I do not have a warrant..." I could certainly live with such a requirement!
Related Posts (on one page):
- What's Good for Two Should Be Good for Two Hundred Million
- House is a Rockin', Don't Bother Knockin'?
Posted by Kip on
22 March 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
