The Daily Nightly began on May 31, 2005. As Brian wrote in his first post it aims to provide a narrative of the broadcast day and a window into the editorial process at NBC Nightly News. Brian weighs in every weekday and NBC News correspondents and producers post regularly.
Brian Williams became the seventh anchor and managing editor in the history of NBC Nightly News on December 2, 2004. Read his full biography.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
advertisement
About the broadcast | Biographies
RSS is an easy way to get the news you want as it is updated even if you are not on MSNBC.com. More information about MSNBC.com's RSS feeds.
Podcasting brings you audio and video from each weekday broadcast on your iPod or other portable MP3 player anytime, anywhere. More information about MSNBC.com's podcasts.
Sign-up for our daily e-mail newsletter. It offers a preview of the stories and special reports featured on each weekday broadcast.
Today's Supreme Court ruling on police searches reads like an episode of "Law & Order."
Police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call at the home of a couple that's had a rocky marriage. In front of the officers, the husband and wife trade accusations. She claims her husband's drug use is causing money problems and says actual "items of drug evidence" are in their home.
Hearing the suggestion that evidence might be inside, the police ask the husband if they can search the house. No way, he says. But the wife gives her consent and leads the officers to an upstairs bedroom, where they find a drinking straw with what looks like cocaine on it.
That very scene played out in reality five years ago at the home of a Georgia lawyer who was arrested and charged with drug possession.
Today, by a vote of 5-3, the U.S. Supreme Court said the search was illegal and that police who don't have a warrant cannot come into a house (or apartment, or college dorm room, for that matter) when one of the "cohabitants" objects.
Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer. The opinion says past search cases in this area all come down to what's commonly understood about the rights and responsibilities of people who live together. "A caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant's invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, 'stay out.'" The same idea, Souter writes, is reflected in property law. When people live together, there's no superior and inferior, and each has an equal say in how the property is used.
Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissented. Justice Samuel Alito took no part, because the case was argued before he joined the court.
In his first written dissent, Roberts says the ruling makes no sense and "protects a co-occupant who happens to be at the front door when the other occupant consents to the search." But he says the decision would not protect another occupant "napping or watching television in the next room" who doesn't happen to be at the front door to object. "If an individual shares information, papers, or places with another, he assumes the risk that the other person will in turn share access to that information or those papers or places with the government," Roberts writes. In this particular case, he says, the wife could just have easily walked upstairs, gotten the cocaine straw, and turned it over police. And, Roberts says, she could have consented "to police entry and search of what is, after all, her home, too."
Read more from Pete Williams
EMAIL THIS
TRACKBACKS
Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d834808f4f53ef
Inside Wednesday's rundown
Geesshh, lets just hope they search the oval office for those pictures and documents showing Weapons of Mass Destruction,, that Bush Claimed were over there, maybe, they'll find an Oil Painting or water color portrait of WMDs,, to give credence to Bushs Claim, it'll be all he's got!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Faltermeier/Kansas City Missouri (Sent Mar 25, 2006 8:40:19 PM)
i must admit hearing the supreme court ruled that the police were in the wrong was very appro. However, the police make many many contacts w/in their community that live in esp. when it comes to different levels of abuse. This one point if any bothers me. Abuse happens to to many people of all ages (sadly) and the police should not be stopped at keeping someone esp. children in harms way. therfore i think it was the wrong ruling.
D Veillette, Maine (Sent Mar 24, 2006 3:38:14 PM)
I find nothing wrong with the police doing what's right. If you aren't causing any trouble, these issues don't apply to you. It's always those getting in trouble who cry about their "civil rights" and blah blah blah. But yet, people complain that their neighborhoods are being overun with crime, drugs and gangs. You can't have it both ways people. It's either one way or the other.
(Sent Mar 24, 2006 1:44:59 PM)
I see the Supreme Court in the future, rulling that the Death Penalty is banned through out the nation. As a result, Defense Attorneys all over will move that Police Officers should not carry firearms, because they can not act as state executioner. My opinion is that Supreme Court Judges should start considering doing no more home to victims, as apose to suspects. This rulling is another nail in the coffin, towards any police officers thinking their job is to protect the public, without fear of being sued by every attorney and suspect in town.
John Stewart, Kansas City, Missouri (Sent Mar 23, 2006 1:10:58 PM)
I think people should be able to say yes or no to having searches without a warrant. If you live with someone and get into an argument who is to say that they didn't plant something? You leave for a minute to cool off and when you come back they may have taken an old pain pill and crushed it up before calling the cops? They could call a friend that does drugs and asked for a joint that they placed in your dresser? In cases where someone is Bi-Polar it has been known to happen. The need for getting even outways common sense. Now being a suspect isn't a crime but it does go in a record which can harm you in the long run (need a security clearence?).
Tony Williams, Raleigh, NC (Sent Mar 23, 2006 12:02:19 AM)
TRUE ENOUGH THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, BUT THEN THE QUESTIONS COMES; DO YOU DETAIN THE SUBJECT FROM MOVING THROUGHOUT THEIR HOME FROM THAT POINT ON SO THAT HE DOESN'T DESTROY THE EVIDENCE? OR DOES IT FALL UNDER THE EXSTINGENT CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE OF THAT FACT. IF YOU DETAIN HIM TO GO GET A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH TIME IS MORE REASONBALE? AND IF THE POLICE DOES NOT TAKE THE INFORMATION TO THE NEXT STAGE WHAT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE PERSON HOW GAVE THE INFORMATION AND THEIR SAFETY AFTER THE POLICE LEAVE? IT'S LIKE LEAVING THE ABUSED PERSON IN A SITUATION TO BE HARMED EVEN MORE
J.F. ATKINSON HUNTSVILLE ALABAMA (Sent Mar 22, 2006 6:39:21 PM)
One obvious answer which was not discussed, would have been for the wife to advise the police of the presence of drug paraphenalia in the house. Armed with this information, the police would have had probable cause to procure a warrant from a judge to search the premises without the husband's consent.
The issue of future spousal abuse is a "red herring" under the facts of this particular case.
The necessity for requiring the police to obtain a warrant was put in the Constitution for a purpose, and that purpose ought not to be ignored by creating unnecessary exceptions, unless there is a specific sanction for it in the Constitution or its legislative history.
Bruce Shulman, (Sent Mar 22, 2006 2:35:31 PM)
SEND A COMMENT
PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to this post, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.