The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that one household occupant's permission for police to enter the home does not create an exception to the warrant requirement if another occupant stands in the doorway and protests that entry. The case, which involved a disbarred Georgia attorney, has broad implications for police searches and prompted the first dissent written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who warned that the majority may have made it difficult for abused spouses to obtain police assistance.
March 23, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A man’s home is still his castle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, declaring a Georgia woman couldn’t give away her husband’s Fourth Amendment rights.
In a 5-3 decision that backed up a previous ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court, the U.S. high court said that one household occupant’s permission for police to enter the home does not give law enforcement an exception to the warrant requirement if another occupant stands in the doorway and protests that entry.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
