Last week, the Supreme Court ruled police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents even if another resident previously objected.

As previously reported by the LA Times, the 6-3 ruling was triggered by a Los Angeles Department arrest in 2009. The ruling is said to give authorities more leeway to search a home without obtaining a warrant even if there is not an emergency.

The majority was led by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. He said the police need not take the time to get a judges approval to enter a home in certain cases.

The arrest in Los Angeles occurred when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery. They followed a suspect into an apartment building and when they knocked on the door the suspects girlfriend answered. The suspect said the officers could not enter without a warrant but the girlfriend let them in. He was arrested and during the apartment search the police found a shotgun and gang-related material.

Tuesday’s decision determined the suspect did not have the right to prevent the search because his girlfriend consented.

In the past, the court has always not allowed such searches unless there was an emergency.

Judge Alito said:

A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant. Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application.

Alito also said the girlfriend appeared to be beaten when she answered the door and she should have her own right to consent a search.

The voting lineup was as follows:

FOR:

John G. Robert, Jr.

Antonin Scalia

Clarence Thomas

Stephen G. Brewer

Anthony M. Kennedy

AGAINST:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Sonia Sotomayor

Elena Kagan