I’m not an attorney and I haven’t read the opinion, but Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling (as explained in the story) seems weak.
The 5-3 decision put new limits on officers who want to search for evidence of a crime without obtaining a warrant first.
If one occupant tells them no, the search is unconstitutional, justices said.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote his first dissent, predicting severe consequences for women who want police to come in but are overruled by abusive husbands.
It seems like a reasonable concern, and in reality some women may suffer as a result. But do we write the law for exceptions or for basic principles? When Danielle and I bought our house, I didn’t sign the papers with the intent of giving my rights to her, nor did she offer hers to me. That’s reasonable. And the explanation of this case does not indicate any form of domestic abuse, as Chief Justice Roberts uses for his dissent. So I don’t see a problem.
I regularly watch Cops, which I know is certainly not equivalent to a law degree. Yet, domestic violence that can’t be proven sufficiently for an arrest has appeared. The last time I saw it, the officer explained that she couldn’t make the husband leave, but she could protect the wife while she packed her bags. The officer escorted the woman and her child from the home so that the wife could leave safely. It’s easy to say this isn’t optimal, which may satisfy Chief Justice Roberts’ argument, but the Constitution still matters, no?
I reserve the right to later acknowledge (again) that I’m probably talking out of my ass.