Yakuda
Verified User
LOL the first one yo claim victory loses asshole. fucking idiot
Entering your home without a warrant.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
That’s all he’s got!
Into the Night
Contributor
Illegal immigrants are criminals and immediately subject to deportation.
Trump does not care if ICE violates the laws or the Constitution. He needs people to be very afraid of his army and understand that the law will not protect them. Then, when they are at the polls, not all polls, just ones with lots of minorities, the voters will be chased away.
In one night, one raid, ICE raided 130 apartments at 7500 S. South Shore Drive on September 30th, 2025. There was no warrant. Half those apartments belonged to US citizens. They threw flash bang grenades into the hallways. It was bad.
The number of homes entered without a warrant will never be known, but it is probably in the thousands or even tens of thousands.
That one bit you in the ass. The Biden Junta violated it and now the IRS has to pay $1.7 billion to the victims of lawfare.
Not necessarily, but besides that, most of these victims were Americans.
Citation?
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
If it's apartments, they're SOL if the manager/owner gives the LEOs permission, dumbass.
Apartments are the owner's property, not the tenants.
Absolutely UNTRUE.If it's apartments, they're SOL if the manager/owner gives the LEOs permission, dumbass.
Apartments are the owner's property, not the tenants.
I can tell you as a former criminal prosecutor your claim is absolutely untrue and ignorant of basics of the 14th Amendment. An apartment manager or building owner cannot grant such access legally to meet the requirements of the 4th Amendment.If it's apartments, they're SOL if the manager/owner gives the LEOs permission, dumbass.
Apartments are the owner's property, not the tenants.
A memo….
CONTROLLING RULE
I. A landlord or building manager cannot validly consent to a police search of a tenant’s dwelling. The Fourth Amendment protects the tenant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in leased premises. Upon execution of a lease, the tenant acquires exclusive possessory rights; the landlord retains only the reversionary interest and authority over common areas. The landlord’s ownership interest in the building does not carry with it the authority to waive the tenant’s constitutional rights.
II. FEDERAL AUTHORITY
Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961).
The Supreme Court held that a landlord’s consent to police entry into a leased residence was constitutionally insufficient. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the landlord’s property ownership gave him authority to permit the search, reasoning that a tenant’s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be waived by a third party with no possessory interest in the space.
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).
Reaffirming and extending third-party consent doctrine, the Court held that a physically present co-occupant’s refusal to consent overrides another co-occupant’s consent to search. The decision underscores that consent authority flows from shared, actual authority over the space — not from ownership of the surrounding structure.
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
The Court established that valid third-party consent requires “mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control.” A landlord satisfies neither prong: the landlord does not use the tenant’s apartment, nor have joint access or control over it during the lease term.
III. FLORIDA AUTHORITY
State v. Albritton, 353 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Florida courts have consistently applied the federal framework. A landlord’s consent to police entry of a tenant’s unit is constitutionally infirm. Evidence obtained through such entry is subject to suppression under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which provides independent state-law protection at least co-extensive with the federal standard.
Note: Florida courts applying Art. I, §12 have occasionally interpreted the state provision more broadly than its federal counterpart. Independent Florida grounds should be raised as an alternative basis in any suppression motion.
IV. RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS
The following circumstances permit police entry without tenant consent:
1. Search Warrant. A judicially authorized warrant based on probable cause renders landlord cooperation irrelevant. Police may enter with or without the landlord’s assistance.
2. Exigent Circumstances. Imminent threat to life, hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, or imminent destruction of evidence may justify warrantless entry. Courts apply a totality-of-circumstances test and scrutinize these claims carefully post-entry.
3. Tenant’s Own Consent. The tenant may consent, as may someone the tenant has authorized with actual or apparent authority over the specific space (e.g., a roommate with joint access).
4. Emergency / Welfare Check. Where credible information suggests an occupant is in medical distress or danger, entry may be lawful under the emergency aid doctrine. Scope of entry is limited to addressing the emergency.
V. REMEDY
Evidence obtained through an unlawful search premised on landlord consent is subject to exclusion under the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The remedy is a Motion to Suppress in the trial court. Any derivative evidence (“fruit of the poisonous tree”) is likewise suppressible. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
Such ignorance is astounding!
Last edited:
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
"2. Exigent Circumstances. Imminent threat to life, hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, or imminent destruction of evidence may justify warrantless entry. Courts apply a totality-of-circumstances test and scrutinize these claims carefully post-entry."
Not ignorant. They have changed the law since the time I knew what it was.
Thx for a good post though, for once.
False, the law has been this way for 60 years,
What exigency circumstances do you claim? Exigent circumstances have 0 to do with the manager of the apartment complex.
In criminal law, "exigent circumstances" refers to an emergency situation that requires immediate, warrantless action by law enforcement. It is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing police to enter a home or conduct a search without a warrant if they have probable cause and no time to secure one.
A crime in progress,,,,
Dumbfuck.
Not all crimes in progress count, and these people were mostly here legally. None were charged with a crime.
Idiotic, study up, the law here is very clear.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Yakuda
Verified User
Oh well. US citizens spend months upon months in prison for trespassing
Into the Night
Contributor
ICE is enforcing the law, Sybil.
You deny and discard the Constitution. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE DOCUMENT YOU DESPISE!
ICE is enforcing the law, Sybil.
It is DEMOCRATS rioting in the street.
It is DEMOCRATS attacking law enforcement and conducting insurrection.
It is DEMOCRATS looting.
It is DEMOCRATS harboring illegal aliens.
You JUST ADMITTED that illegal aliens are voting!
Into the Night
Contributor
Yet another anecdote.
Why do you want to harbor illegal aliens and violate federal law, Wally?
Into the Night
Contributor
Necessarily. All illegal aliens are criminals. It is a violation of federal and state laws to enter the country illegally or to stay beyond your visa illegally.
They are immediately subject to deportation.