{"id":4420,"date":"2010-12-29T08:51:14","date_gmt":"2010-07-12T07:35:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-12T07:35:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4420","title":{"rendered":"OR explains Randolph<\/em> and the removed objector"},"content":{"rendered":"

Oregon explains Randolph<\/a>, Matlock<\/a>, and Rodriguez<\/a> in detail where the objector was removed from the scene. His objection continues. State v. Caster<\/a>, 236 Ore. App. 214, 234 P.3d 1087 (2010):<\/p>\n

Randolph<\/a> is best viewed not as an \u201cexception\u201d to co-occupant consent cases like Matlock<\/a> and Rodriguez<\/a>, but rather as an illustration of the ordinary rule that warrantless searches are unauthorized. That is, Randolph<\/a> is properly understood as a case in which the Court was unable to find, as it had in Matlock<\/a> and Rodriguez, an exception to the warrant requirement. In determining whether the circumstances merited a departure from the ordinary rule, the Court explained that the \u201cconstant element\u201d in assessing whether a warrantless entry is reasonable based on the co-occupant’s consent is \u201cthe great significance given to widely shared social expectations.\u201d 547 US at 111. The Court ultimately concluded that police cannot reasonably rely on a co-occupant\u2019s consent in the face of an express, \u201cat-the-door\u201d objection, because there is ordinarily \u201cno societal understanding of superior and inferior\u201d as between the rights of co-occupants. 547 US at 114. Such is the case, according to the Court, \u201cwhether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n

Thus, the question before us is whether some different societal understanding obtains once the objecting tenant has been arrested. That is, does it somehow become \u201creasonable\u201d under the Fourth Amendment for police to ignore a tenant’s earlier objection once that tenant is arrested? We are not persuaded that it does.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}