Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the majority opinion stating that law enforcement did not need to obtain a warrant as long as permission was given by at least one occupant. However, the dissenters, who were led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, highlighted the fact that the ruling erodes protections provided for in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures. The Amendment specifically states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to b e seized.” Ginsburg also wrote that the decision, “tells police they may dodge (the warrant requirement), never mind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.”
A 2006 decision in the Georgia V. Randolph case stands in stark contrast to this ruling. In that case, the court ruled that a man’s refusal to allow police to enter his home when his wife had called authorities to report a domestic dispute was enough to prevent police from entering the home. When referencing this ruling, the court mentioned that this was only upheld when a cohabitant is present to object to the search.
This ruling seems to be an absolute violation of rights since the ruling means that law enforcement can show up without a warrant to a residence they have already been denied entry to, and enter the property when that person is not there if someone else gives them permission. It will not take many more rulings for the 4th Amendment to be completely obliterated.
Article Appeared @http://www.blackbluedog.com/2014/05/news/americans-fourth-amendment-in-jeopardy-cops-can-enter-home-without-warrant/