Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

.

.
 0 (0%)
.
 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Author Topic: .  (Read 990 times)

PedanticVerbiage

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
  • What's a Newbie(an)? - Shut the @#!* up!
    • View Profile
Re: Georgia v. Randolph. Roberts Dissents
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2006, 12:09:49 PM »
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.




I would read the opinion before you state a reason for disagreement, for this sort of case is mentioned:
Quote
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 would think that in domestic violence cases there would be an “indication to the police of a need for protection.”
CLS 2009

Stifler

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Georgia v. Randolph. Roberts Dissents
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2006, 12:11:25 PM »
i agree with roberts argument in the dissent. 

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Georgia v. Randolph. Roberts Dissents
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2006, 08:52:09 PM »
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.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Georgia v. Randolph. Roberts Dissents
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2006, 10:14:28 AM »
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.


Indeed that would be a double standard except you're talking about different kinds of conservatives.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.