Posted on 11/08/2005 2:14:12 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court considered whether police may search a home when one resident says to come in but another objects, in an unusually spirited debate Tuesday that drew out even the usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justices took up a case that arose in a small Georgia town. The wife of a local lawyer invited officers in to search their house after the husband turned them down. The search uncovered evidence of illegal drugs.
The Supreme Court has never said whether the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches covers such a scenario — when one home occupant says enter and another says no.
Thomas, who rarely asks questions during court sessions, spoke several times and hinted that he would back the police.
The case could be so close that it comes down to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. If her successor is confirmed before the ruling is announced, her vote will not count.
"Don't we have to look to social understanding and the right to privacy?" O'Connor asked. "The wife says come on in and the husband is right there and says no."
The dispute arose in 2001 when police in Americus, Ga., were called to a domestic dispute at the home of Scott Fitz Randolph and his wife, Janet.
The two were having marital troubles, and she'd recently taken their son to her parents' home in Canada. Scott Randolph's lawyers said the police call came when she returned for a few days to get belongings.
Janet Randolph led officers to evidence later used to charge her husband with cocaine possession. That charge is on hold while the courts resolve whether the search was constitutional. Georgia's Supreme Court was divided in ruling for Scott Randolph.
Americus is a town of about 17,000 near Plains, the hometown of former President Carter. It's about 200 miles from Savannah and Pin Point, where Thomas was raised.
Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant.
Michael Dreeben, an attorney for the Bush administration, which backs police in the case, said people should be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement.
Several justices seemed sympathetic to the police, raising concerns that limits on searches would hamper domestic disturbance investigations.
"The two words on my mind are 'spousal abuse,'" Justice Stephen Breyer said.
Chief Justice John Roberts worried that if a home had 10 occupants, all 10 would have to agree before a search.
The court's two women, O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seemed more inclined to back the rights of homeowners who turn police away.
Eight of the nine justices are married, and several seemed concerned that one spouse could object to a stranger coming into the house and be trumped by the other spouse.
"It seems to me an odd proposition," Justice Antonin Scalia said.
"Can the wife say, `It's OK for you to come in and you can look in my husband's top drawer?'" Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked the lawyer for Georgia, Paula Smith
Smith responded that the wife may have put socks in the drawer.
The case is Georgia v. Randolph, 04-1067.
___
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
If the husband had said no on a previous police visit would that still be in force if the police arrived when only the wife was at home and she permitted a search.
If there is a way to get her name in the history books you can count on SDO to do it no matter how poorly her opinion stands in the light of the constitution.
I think a "no" and a "yes" cancel each other out, which is essentially a "no". Warrant needed, IMO.
No, Judge Roberts, only the judge signing the warrant would have to consent.
This should really be an easy case if not for judges on the left and right trying to score political points. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against searches and seizures without a warrant. The right is absolute, without exception. Although I have the right to waive the warrant requirement and consent to a search, a waiver has to to be unequivical and consenual. Where two or more people own real property then both must consent because neither has the right to waive the fourth amendment on behalf of another person, particularly when that other person has clearly stated that they don't consent. End of case.
That's the scarier part.
Supreme Court Preview: Briefs: October 2005
Supreme Court Preview: Briefs: November 2005
Supreme Court Preview: Briefs: December 2005
Supreme Court Preview: Briefs: January 2006
MERITS BRIEFS - Online
Argument Transcripts
Granted/Noted Cases List October 2005 Term
Supreme Court Docket October 2005
Supreme Court Docket November 2005
Supreme Court Docket December 2005
It doesn't equal a no or a yes. Should the cops get to pick which answer they like the best?
Agreed. It doesn't equal what they need to enter without a warrant, which is "permission".
Unless there are unusual circumstances, I don't see how one person can waive the privacy rights of another.
Agreed.
Honestly? I would rather have a drug addict living next door than give the police the power to search my house without my consent and without a warrant.
Justices like to ask a lot of questions to test the lawyers' positions. Such questions are not necessarily indicative of the Justice's position on the matter.
If the husband says no, but the wife says yes, then anything incriminating that's found should be usable against the wife, but not the husband. Move over, Solomon.
This is enough for it to be fairly certain a judge would be willing to issue a search warrant.
Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant.
Combined with the above mentioned likelihood of a warrant being issued if requested, this stipulation from the defense is enough to make this clearly a case of inevitable discovery even if the search were to be deemed unconstitutional.
Several justices seemed sympathetic to the police, raising concerns that limits on searches would hamper domestic disturbance investigations.
This is reason enough to recognize that granting the power to refuse entry to the suspect by denying the victim the right to request police assistance would be a miscarriage of justice.
Bottom line: this case shouldn't have even made it to the Supreme Court.
I hear the "no" in your voice, but I see "yes" in your eyes (bloodshot from all the lines of coke you've been snorting).
/s
If there's a domestic disturbance situation, one "yes" trumps all the "no"s, especially the nose full of cocaine.
IMHO
Even in a case where the wife is the reporting victim and the husband is the suspect?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.