Georgia v. Randolph
 | |
| Georgia v. Randolph | |
| Reference: 547 U.S. 103 | |
| Term: 2006 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: November 8, 2005 Decided: March 22, 2006 | |
| Outcome | |
| Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg • John Paul Stevens • Stephen Breyer • David Souter • Anthony Kennedy | |
| Dissenting | |
| Clarence Thomas • Antonin Scalia • John Roberts | |
Georgia v. Randolph is a case decided on March 22, 2006, by the United States Supreme Court holding that a search conducted without a warrant is unconstitutional if one occupant consents but another occupant of the same residence does not. The case concerned Georgia police officers who searched the home of Scott Randolph without a warrant per the consent of Randolph's wife, and collected evidence to convict Scott Randolph of drug possession. Scott, who was present during the search, objected to the police's request to enter the home. In a 5-3 decision, the justices found the police officers violated the reasonableness requirement outlined in the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia.[1][2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision found that Georgia officers violated the reasonableness requirement outlined in the Fourth Amendment. The case established the precedent that all physically present residents must consent to an unwarranted search in order for it to be constitutional. To read more about the impact of Georgia v. Randolph click here.
Background
Georgia police officers requested to search the home of Scott Randolph and his wife without a search warrant. Randolph's wife permitted the officers to search the residence, while Scott objected to the officers' request. Scott Randolph was arrested by police for drug possession after officers found cocaine during the search. Scott Randolph argued the search was unconstitutional because he did not give the officers consent to search the home.
The trial court ruled in favor of the prosecution, but the appellate court and Supreme Court of Georgia both sided with Randolph's defense, finding that an unwarranted search is unconstitutional if one resident consents but the other resident objects.[2]
Oral argument
Oral arguments were held on November 8, 2005. The case was decided on March 22, 2006.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 5-3 to affirm the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Justice David Souter delivered the opinion of the court with Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens writing concurring opinions. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts wrote dissenting opinions.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice David Souter, writing for the court, argued that the police officers violated the reasonableness requirement outlined in the Fourth Amendment, necessitating all searches to be conducted with reason:[2]
| “ | The Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless entry and search of premises when police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, authority over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177 (1990); United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). The question here is whether such an evidentiary seizure is likewise lawful with the permission of one occupant when the other, who later seeks to suppress the evidence, is present at the scene and expressly refuses to consent. We hold that, in the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.[3] | ” |
| —David Souter, majority opinion in Georgia v. Randolph[2] | ||
Concurring opinions
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion arguing that given the totality of the circumstances, the officers' search cannot be justified since one party objected to the search and the officers might have easily obtained a warrant:
| “ | The circumstances here include the following: The search at issue was a search solely for evidence. The objecting party was present and made his objection known clearly and directly to the officers seeking to enter the house. The officers did not justify their search on grounds of possible evidence destruction. Cf. Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615, 620–622 (2004); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 623 (1989); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 770–771 (1966). And, as far as the record reveals, the officers might easily have secured the premises and sought a warrant permitting them to enter. See Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U. S. 326 (2001). Thus, the 'totality of the circumstances' present here do not suffice to justify abandoning the Fourth Amendment’s traditional hostility to police entry into a home without a warrant.[3] | ” |
| —Stephen Breyer, concurring opinion in Georgia v. Randolph[2] | ||
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion arguing that each spouse has constitutional rights, and therefore Scott Randolph's objection to the search makes it unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not his spouse consented:
| “ | In today’s world the only advice that an officer could properly give should make it clear that each of the partners has a constitutional right that he or she may independently assert or waive. Assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other’s constitutional right to deny entry to their castle.
|
” |
| —John Paul Stevens, concurring opinion in Georgia v. Randolph[2] | ||
Dissenting opinions
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the search should not be considered unconstitutional if Mrs. Randolph was acting as a responsible citizen by aiding law enforcement:
| “ | The Court has long recognized that '[i]t is an act of responsible citizenship for individuals to give whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement.' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 477–478 (1966). Consistent with this principle, the Court held in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971), that no Fourth Amendment search occurs where, as here, the spouse of an accused voluntarily leads the police to potential evidence of wrongdoing by the accused. Id., at 486–490. Because Coolidge squarely controls this case, the Court need not address whether police could permissibly have conducted a general search of the Randolph home, based on Mrs. Randolph’s consent. I respectfully dissent.[3] | ” |
| —Clarence Thomas, dissenting opinion in Georgia v. Randolph[2] | ||
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion critiquing Justice Steven's opinion that in today's society, each sex has equal constitutional rights. He argued this way of thinking could prevent police from protecting women against domestic violence:
| “ | Finally, I must express grave doubt that today’s decision deserves Justice Stevens’ celebration as part of the forward march of women’s equality. Given the usual patterns of domestic violence, how often can police be expected to encounter the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home while a woman simultaneously demands that they stay out? The most common practical effect of today’s decision, insofar as the contest between the sexes is concerned, is to give men the power to stop women from allowing police into their homes—which is, curiously enough, precisely the power that Justice Stevens disapprovingly presumes men had in 1791.[3] | ” |
| —Antonin Scalia, dissenting opinion in Georgia v. Randolph[2] | ||
Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the search was reasonable since Mrs. Randolph, who is a co-owner of the residence, permitted the police to search:
| “ | A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it. Co-occupants have 'assumed the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched.' United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, 171, n. 7 (1974). Just as Mrs. Randolph could walk upstairs, come down, and turn her husband’s cocaine straw over to the police, she can consent to police entry and search of what is, after all, her home, too.[3] | ” |
| —John Roberts, dissenting opinion in Georgia v. Randolph[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Georgia v. Randolph held that Georgia officers violated the reasonableness requirement outlined in the Fourth Amendment by searching Scott Randolph's home without the full consent of all residents present. The case established the precedent that all physically present residents must consent to an unwarranted search in order for it to be constitutional.[1][2]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Georgia v. Randolph," accessed August 8, 2022
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 Justia, "Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)," accessed August 8, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
