Total Members Voted: 0
I disagree with SCOTUS on this. Especially with domestic violence cases when one party would deny the Police from entering and the other party wants the Police to enter.
Randolph’s refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of Janet Randolph’s consent. The State does not argue that she gave any indication to the police of a need for protection inside the house that might have justified entry into the portion of the premises where the police found the powdery straw (which, if lawfully seized, could have been used when attempting to establish probable cause for the war-rant issued later). (PAGE 18 OF SOUTER's OotC - http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1067.pdf)
I don't think the precedent would apply to a domestic abuse case.Conseratives usually say your home is your castlee-use a springboard gun to protect when you aren't home, if you want, the public has no interest in your house and if they attempt to break in they deserve to be shot.However, when the victim isn't a sympathic property owner (but a drug dealer), home isn't your castle, police can enter when it is questionable if the law allows them to enter.It seems like a double standard to me, your home is your castle if you are a law abiding citizen, but if you aren't a law abiding citizen then your rights in your home are restricted.