You know what the vampire rules are, don’t you? If a vampire can find you outdoors then you are fresh game. But if you are in your home, then the vampire cannot touch you without an invitation. In fact, he can’t even cross your threshold.
But there is a catch.
Anyone who lives with you can give the invitation. If a child tells the “kind old man” that he can come it, the next day the neighbors will find your entire family dead and pale with mysterious neck wounds.
From the L.A. Times:
Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.
The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.
The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the “very core” of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.
“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights,” Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.
Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas’ consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.
In Tuesday’s decision, the high court said Fernandez did not have the right to prevent the search of his apartment once he was gone and Rojas had consented.
So be careful who you live with because your right to be secure in your property, papers, and effects is only as good as you can trust them. Nothing is said about the age of the occupant, so I have to assume children in your house are fair game.
By the way, why wouldn’t the police get a warrant after arresting Fernandez? The only reason I can think of is that they knew they might be arresting the wrong guy. If they went into his apartment with a warrant then the only admissible evidence would be the evidence of the particular crime of which he was a suspect. But if they could go in invited, then there were no rules. Anything they could find would be admissible. If he wasn’t guilty of the robbery, but had broken some other law, they would be able to charge him or at least make sure he didn’t object to the mistaken arrest.
The Supreme Court, in my view, has made a bad decision.
Hat tip: infowars.com.