Source: rutherford.org 1/24/25
WASHINGTON, DC —The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to protect homeowners from warrantless searches by police based merely on a suspicion that a person on probation or parole resides on the premises.
In refusing to hear an appeal in Bailey v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that could, as Rutherford Institute attorneys warned in their amicus brief, establish a slippery slope that allows police to carry out warrantless searches when police merely suspect but do not know or have probable cause to believe that a probationer lives on the premises.
“This case is about a creeping erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights that threatens every homeowner in America,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “We’re on a slippery slope towards a society where police can invade any home based on nothing more than a hunch. It’s an affront to the Constitution and a danger to us all.”
I always knew republicans were opposed to the 4th amendment. They want a police state where everybody is presumed guilty until proven innocent. So we as a society should let them know we deeply resent being treated like criminals when we’ve done nothing wrong.
The Goon Squad has been officially blessed. No one has rights anymore. We live in a fascist police state.
I do not see what is different as it has usually been that law enforcement could search those on parole or probation for NO reason.”…whenever requested by the law enforcement officer…”.
The article title “Your Home at Risk: Warrantless Police Raids and Searches Could Soon Be on the Rise” leaves out much pertinent information.
Another way to isolate those who are trying to pay their debt to society and make their reintegration and recovery that much harder. May one of the justices have someone they know and love impacted by this decision so it will cause rethinking of this case and remorse for doing what they did. Other online posts from those who provided amicus briefs are interesting reads as well. People need protection, e.g., third parties providing shelter for the person impacted, and this will only lessen that protection, sadly.