The Supreme Court ruled today, in Georgia v. Randolph, that police may not search a home when occupants disagree over whether to consent.
The ruling stems from a 2001 case in which police visited the Randolph home to investigate a domestic disturbance. Mrs. Randolph complained to the officers that her husband was spending too much on cocaine and gave them permission to search the house. When Scott Randolph arrived to find officers rooting through his belongings, he insisted that the search be stopped. The officers continued the search over his objections and eventually discovered cocaine. Randolph was arrested and challenged the search, claiming that his 4th Amendment right to refuse a search trumps his wife’s decision to consent.
What this ruling means:
The Randolph ruling requires that all occupants present at the scene agree to waive their 4th Amendment rights before police may enter the home. The majority concluded that social norms dictate that in shared residences, any occupant is presumed to have the authority to exclude unwanted visitors.
What this ruling does not mean:
Randolph does not apply in situations where the objecting occupant is not present, unless it is found that officers deliberately prevented the occupant from being available to refuse consent. The ruling does not require that any effort be made to contact occupants who are not present at the scene, nor does it impact the legality of searches based on probable cause or exigent circumstances (emergency searches).
While we are very pleased with the Court’s finding in Georgia v. Randolph, it’s important to note that this was only a 5-3 decision. Alito had not been present for oral arguments and did not participate, but it’s easy to assume that he would have joined Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas in dissent.
Most troubling is Chief Justice Roberts’ rambling dissent, arguing that any occupant’s consent should overpower the desire of other residents to assert their 4th Amendment rights. In reaching this conclusion, Roberts conjures the plight of abused spouses, arguing that a prohibition against contested third-party consent searches would undermine domestic violence investigations. In his haste, Roberts ignores the numerous exceptions to the warrant clause that will permit searches in such situations. Sadly, evidence of domestic violence tends to be found on the victim, not in a desk drawer. Nice try though, Chief.
Hopefully, the majority in today’s ruling got the message that they are the 4th Amendment’s only hope. We won today, but the Court fell a vote short of authorizing our roommates to waive our rights before our very eyes. Let’s celebrate this small victory for the 4th Amendment by reminding our housemates and friends what to do if there’s a knock at the door.