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 it would have only taken five minutes to get the warrant, they should have gotten it right after the guy said NO!!
"The two words on my mind are 'spousal abuse,'" Justice Stephen Breyer said.
I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but how does Breyer come up with "spousal abuse"? The wife has already moved out and just came back for some other personal belongings. How is "spousal abuse" germane to this case even if hubby had been "abusing" his wife? Looks like Breyer is looking to "foreign" law principles to decide this case and not on the merits of the case (insofar as I know).
Absolutely not. You can't be beating the hell out of your wife and kids and expect your 4A rights to be intact. There are numerous circumstances where obtaining a warrant could lead to the death and/or severe injury of others whose right to life and not being bashed around trump your, or my, 4A rights.
Whether this case rises to that level, I don't know yet since I haven't read it.
No longer being a fulltime occupant of the home puts her "yes" in jeopardy.
"Now that is the most creative way around the Constitution I've ever seen."
"If there's a domestic disturbance situation, one "yes" trumps all the "no"s, especially the nose full of cocaine."
I've been thinking about that as well. White stuff on the nose = probable cause, IMO. Also if the spouse told the officers when they arrived, "He's got drugs in there!" Again, I'm guessing probable cause.
That said, if a woman called the police on a domestic and the cops came but the man said, "No you can't come in", that would leave the cops with a huge liability if something happened to the woman. Now if the neighbors were the callers, and the man give a no while the woman gives a yes...dang, I'm getting a headache.
This one is a tuffie.
Well, it's true, this guy can't get out 9 words without sounding like a pompous horse's ass.
It's tough to sound pompous in print, but Breyer manages to do it.
It doesn't seem the wife was in immediate danger. In fact, the article seems to indicate that the husband was not home at the time.
It's essentially moot, given the motives of the wife. She wanted to show them the coke. She could have told them it's in there and she wanted them to find it. If the rules of evidence force them to ask every occupant of the house for permission and they think they won't get a warrant, they can just ask her to bring the evidence to the door. If she's detained, it's a crime in progress.
Why not?
The bottomline to this whole mess is as you stated: "She wanted to show them the coke."
And bingo, we have a whole new point of law to add to the mix, including, was it his or hers?
Yes and no.
THAT would mean I HAD something to hide .NEVER volunteer a search of your car or property even if you have nothing to hide.
Unfreakingbelievable. There are numerous clauses in the United States Constitution that directly apply to this situation, and this woman refers only to "social understanding" (whatever the heck that is today) and to an unenumerated right. She should never have been confirmed to the court.
"I disagree with you on point (i). Making warrants difficult to get was the intent of the founders."
You're right on about the right to enter the house in a DV matter. If the wife was injured she'd own your house
I don't agree that a spouse should be able to trump the others fourth amendment protections. In this case, not seeing anything exigent, if PC could have been esatblished with the wife's info and/or thru other means then a warrant would be the way to go and areas of probable secreted evidence should be secured until the warrant can be served. We've had to freeze a few scenes while getting warrants if we had the okay to be there
In my experience, with everything computerized, it's quicker to hammer out a normal warrant and go wake up the on call judge and swear out the warrant at his house. I've never heard of a 5 minute anything let alone 5 minute telephonic warrant when trying to get something from the court.
Check out US vs Matlock. That has some parallels. If the SCOTUS uses that as precedent this will be sent back to reallow the evidence.
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.