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.
Suppose the police come to your office with a search warrant, suspecting you of having committed a crime. During their search, they find something that makes them want to search your home, too. You say no. But they go to your house anyway, where your spouse says yes. Is that a valid search?
No, it's not, according to a federal appeals court ruling today. In a 2-1 decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that once one occupant says no, the others cannot veto that refusal. It extends a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, involving two occupants of a house who argued with police outside about whether they could come in to search. Under this ruling, an occupant can stop a search, no matter how far from the house.
The case involved the search of a Missouri businessman in a drug case. During a search of his office computer, for which they had a warrant, police officers found what they thought was child pornography. So they asked if they could go to his house and search his home computer, for which they did not have a warrant, and he refused.
Even though his wife's consent was voluntary, the court said, "the consent to the seizure of the home computer was not valid because her consent cannot overrule his denial of consent. We believe that the Supreme Court has made it clear that the police must get a warrant when one co-occupant denies consent to search."
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/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d834b02ed253ef
FRANTIC FRIDAY
It just never fails to amaze me how many right-wing extremists are SOOOOOO willing to sacrifice MY rights for THEIR sense of security...we should turn the tables, remove ALL laws and let the Bushies live in a world of no order at all. Maybe when a few of them get shot for trying to keep their guns and money from the government, they will realize why the people in this country vote to keep the Constitution alive
Robin E., Fargo, ND (Sent Aug 27, 2006 11:59:58 AM)
It's a blantant abuse of powers by the Missouri PD. They were completely wrong in this case and should be severely reprimanded. Such powers should only be used on the greatest offense of terrorism.
This has greatly undermined my confidence in the US Justice and legal system. It gives far too much power to law enforcement, and while the Court is able to keep them in check for now. I can't say anything less than, I'm deeply worried about the future of America and the Patriot Act.
If they can just grab your stuff and invade your home on suspicion of doing something wrong. What's next? If I'm writing a fantasy terrorism thriller in a cafe and someone overhears me discussing with my friends the best way to scenario blowing up a state building. Panics and calls the cops on me. Does this automatically give them the right to search me, my computer, my home, lock me in prison indefinitely on suspicion that I might be soliciting for terrorism?
I think so. The Patriot Act violates too many civil liberties and rights. It needs to go, we need to rewrite and fine tune the Patriot Act to fit the needs of the American people. The way it's written now, is totally unacceptable.
DS, Ilion, NY (Sent Aug 26, 2006 3:20:29 AM)
John B, I suggest you read something called the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which deals with unreasonable search and seizure, something we are supposed to be protected from in this country.
If restrictions on the power of government make you feel unsafe, I suggest you move to Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or any number of nice countries where the local Gestapo can kick in your door and search your home without a warrant any time they please.
Jack, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Aug 25, 2006 6:37:07 PM)
John - Procedure is about what's right and what's wrong. It's just a pity the Founding Fathers were sooooo stupid making procedure important.
I hope you get the police state you deserve. Just not here.
Constitution-lover, USA (Sent Aug 25, 2006 5:46:56 PM)
The druggies win again. Our justice system is not about right or wrong, only about procedure. No wonder crime is rampant and no one is safe or secure any longer.
John B., Twin Falls, ID (Sent Aug 25, 2006 4:55:22 PM)
Under the "Government Knows Best" act (sometimes referred to as the "I got yer Bill Of Rights right here" act) I was under the impression that the Feds could search without a warrant, or notification until several weeks after the fact, and if you told anyone what happened you could be Gitmo-bound. That the only "unreasonable" search is the one not conducted.
(Sent Aug 25, 2006 3:28:52 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.