Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/23/2006 4:30:14 AM EST
Hope this is not a dupe, if it is...oh well

- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Georgia v. Randolph
Decided: 03/22/06
No. 04-1067
Full text: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-1067.html

FOURTH AMENDMENT (One Co-habitant’s Consent to Search is Invalid When
Other Co-habitant is Present and Refuses to Give Consent)

The United States Supreme Court held 5-3 (opinion by Souter,
by Stevens and Breyer; dissents by Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas; Alito
took no part in the decision of the case) that where an authorized
co-tenant is physically present and refuses consent to search, the
consent of another co-tenant does not validate the search.

Scott Randolph (Randolph) was indicted for possession of cocaine. At
the time of the search, Randolph and his estranged wife were both
physically present at their home. Although Randall’s wife provided
consent to allow a search, Randolph expressly refused consent. The
police ignored Randolph’s refusal and searched the home based on the
consent provided by Randolph’s wife. During the search the police found
the cocaine used to indict Randolph. At trial, the Superior Court in
Sumter County, Georgia denied Randolph’s motion to suppress evidence.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, holding the consent of one
co-habitant is not valid when the other co-habitant refuses the search.
The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the reversal, and the United States
Supreme Court (the Court) affirmed. The Court held that while the
Amendment authorizes a warrantless search when consent is given by a
tenant with common dwelling authority, this consent is not valid when
consent is denied by a co-tenant who also has common authority.
[Summarized by Sam Groberg.]
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 6:53:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 6:53:19 AM EST by NorCal_LEO]
Top Top