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/
I thought NO meant NO..isn't that what we've been taught for umpteen years??
Yeah, but don't you know, now days it depends on the meaning of NO.
if you have nu zing to fear, you vill open zee door and let us search
... a man's house is sacred from government search...
---
Fine. Have a meth lab, child abductor, etc. move into your backyard.
...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...
---
I would say that they did.
OK, they can only search HALF the house.
"Bottom line for me is, one no and one yes doesn't equal a yes. Police should have gotten a search warrant first."
So, a no and a yes equals a no?
One "no" trumps consent. The Georgia Supreme Court opinion has a dissenting opinion of three Justices who say that one "yes" constitutes permission.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067Pet.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067Resp.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067PetReply.pdf
Links directly above are the briefs.
Seems clear enough: Only the effects of those who consent to the search should be searchable, and anything found that relates to a party who did not consent would not be legally actionable.
Thanks for the links.
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.