Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court considers police searches
ap on Yahoo ^ | 11/08/05 | Gina Holland - ap

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/


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: considers; police; searches; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last
To: jwalsh07
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.

That's what the Supreme Court has said about the 4th Amendment, and the exception you are refering to might even be something that should be in the Constitution, but its no where to be found except in the minds of a handful of judges who decided to add the exception. Making up provisions that aren't there is a dangerous precedent.

81 posted on 11/08/2005 6:06:44 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Sorry if the truth offends you.

Not offended at all my FRiend. If the second part of the sentence doesn't apply to the first, then there is absolutely no point in even adding the second phrase sense it has no meaning except in the context of the sentence. The whole point is to provide the capability to search when needed, but to insure the reasonably of the search, the need is assessed by a judge and a warrant issued.
82 posted on 11/08/2005 6:51:07 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle

i think the scenario being envisioned is more a domestic violence situation where the "beator" says no and the "beatee" says yes.

HOWEVER, I think this smacks of occupant shopping in much the same way as the courts see forum shopping as a no no.

The police mearly wait for the 16 year old (which is all that is required in age for most states for service of process btw) and ask the child if it is ok to go in.

I think it really matters what the facts are in this case and the court have better CHAIN their ruling to those SPECIFIC facts.


83 posted on 11/08/2005 6:59:30 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
I thought NO meant NO..isn't that what we've been taught for umpteen years??

Only whe she says, "No!"

84 posted on 11/08/2005 7:27:38 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Horatio Gates

Yes, freezing the scene and getting the warrant is always the better option, and it can be a fairly quick process, but certainly not the "5 minute" telephone call described.

So many factors, so little information to do an analysis.

Thanks


85 posted on 11/09/2005 3:52:24 AM PST by 5Madman2 (There is no such thing as an experienced suicide bomber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
i think the scenario being envisioned is more a domestic violence situation where the "beator" says no and the "beatee" says yes.

I did understand this. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any prohibition where the police could not enter to relieve a domestic violence situation. There is a big difference between arresting a person who is committing, or had just committed a crime, and snooping around to see what else you can find while you are there. I believe the domestic violence issue is a straw man of a sort, not related to the issue at hand. I agree that the matter may be a good one for the courts.

Cordially,
GE
86 posted on 11/09/2005 4:41:55 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle

"If the second part of the sentence doesn't apply to the first, then there is absolutely no point in even adding the second phrase sense it has no meaning except in the context of the sentence."



I think all of the first eight amendments have several clauses that are unrelated (e.g., the 5th Am talks about grand jury presentment, double jeopardy, takings and other matters that have nothing to do with one another). The way I see it, the 4th Am actually has two clauses that have something to do with one another (both have to do with searches by the government), but one has to do with the reasonableness of the search, while the second imposes a limit on the ability of the government issuing a warrant to protect the police from liability. I will grant you that if there is probable cause and specificity and a judge thus issues a warrant, it would be very difficult to argue that such ensuing search would not be reasonable, but that does not mean that the opposite is true (that a warrantless search is per se unreasonable).


87 posted on 11/09/2005 6:32:58 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
but one has to do with the reasonableness of the search, while the second imposes a limit on the ability of the government issuing a warrant to protect the police from liability.

I have searched both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and have found no support for your position. I have, however, found a wealth of support in the anti_federalist papers to support my position. In fact, a couple of states, PA being the most vocal, would not enter into the agreement without the guarantee to be free from search and/or seizor without a warrant supported by evidence. I find absolutely no evidence that they though a warrant to be evil, but have found where they found searches unsupported by a warrant that had supporting evidence to be - and I quote - "grievous and oppressive"

If you have any supporting evidence I would be interested in hearing it.

Cordially,
GE
88 posted on 11/09/2005 8:24:35 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Intersting . . .

On the one hand, two people have equal rights to privacy and, since both are present, one can not speak for the other.

On the other hand, the police were responding to a domestic disturbance complaint - where, likely, access to the domicile would be needed to ascertain whether a crime was being comitted (remember that it can be assumed that one or the other of the persons present could be "under duress" and unable to tell the police what occurred.)

Lastly, it seems obvious that the women used the situation to implicate her husband in a crime other than the one being investigated . . .

IMHO, the court should allow the entry into the domicile for the purpose of discovering whether the complaint was vaild - anything beyond that, should have needed a valid warrant.


89 posted on 11/09/2005 8:38:05 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
It wouldn't be a problem if the police just got a warrant. They shouldn't be able to come in without a warrant even if you take out a full page ad in USA Today inviting them to. If they have a warrant, it doesn't matter who says come in or don't.

Not surprised to see the usual "if you're not doing anything wrong" crowd in here tossing in their vote for tyranny.
90 posted on 11/09/2005 8:41:56 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"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."

I guess O'Connor will have to consult with French or German law to settle this one.


91 posted on 11/09/2005 8:50:55 AM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
You are failing to remember that one of the home owners asked the police to remove the contraband. Also, it was not just a thought that the husband was a drug addict.

Don't misunderstand. It is obvious the police must work within the confines of our laws. In this case, I believe that they did.
92 posted on 11/09/2005 10:45:13 AM PST by downtoliberalism ("A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle

GR, an explanation of how the text, structure and history of the 4th Amendment shows that it is best interpreted as two separate clauses, and thus not requiring warrants in order for a search be deemed reasonable, may be found in pages 3-13 of the following PDF: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1994Fourth.pdf
Perhaps it won't convince you, but I think you'll at least find the history and analysis interesting.

If you're interested in this and other issues of interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and have an hour to spare, read the whole article (it's 67 pages).

BTW, I know that I'm in the minority when it comes to the Warrant Clause, but I'm too much of a textualist to believe otherwise. (If you can find the old Kelo threads, you'll see that I similarly make a textual argument that the 5th Amendment does not require courts to determine whether a taking is for public use, but that a whole other matter).

FReegards,

AuH2O


93 posted on 11/09/2005 3:48:08 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Thanks for the info.
You may be right in that we will not agree, but I always have more room for additional information.


Cordially,
GE
94 posted on 11/09/2005 3:58:58 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

"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."

With that statement, you are assuming that the wife is the victim of something, and the husband is the suspect.


95 posted on 12/02/2005 8:19:01 PM PST by Nhunt52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson