Search and Seizure

GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH

Summary of the case

Randolph and wife had marital separation in May 2001 due to marriage issues.  One morning, the wife called the police to come and resolve the marital problems, and the police arrived the wife reported that his husband is a cocaine user.  The police conducted a search for cocaine evidence after obtaining a consent from the wife despite the husband’s refusal (FindLaw. 2019). The police used a warrantless entry and after the search, he found evidence of cocaine use.  (FindLaw. 2019). In the court, Randolph requested the court to exclude the presented evidence he was denied the request by the trial court. The Georgia Court of Appeals did not agree with the trial court judgment and reversed the trial court decision.  In addition, the State Supreme Court provided a legal clarity about the matter and affirmed that the wife's consent for the search of evidence was invalid since the husband, Randolph was a present occupant who refused to offer consent for the search of evidence (FindLaw. 2019). The summary indicates that the law enforcement agency desecrated the constitutional law and the search and seizure was unreasonable and illegal.

Courts decision

   Using the above facts, the court made a decision that during the search for evidence, the respondent was a present co-occupants and he was against the warrantless entry and search (FindLaw. 2019). Thus, the police search for evidence was arbitrary and invalid. This means that the policeman sullied the 4th Amendment and the search and seizure was illegal due to lack of legal authority. They did not have a probable cause- facts and circumstances about the crime of drug abuse. They solely relied on the information given by Mrs. Randolph and this was unlawful. According to the Fourth Amendment, police have the right for warrantless entry if only they obtain a voluntary consent in residences where occupants share a common authority (Bloom, 2003). However, they should not obtain a warrantless entry in presence of a present occupant who refuses for a warrantless entry. The occupants share common authority and premises and they are protected by the property law. In this case, Randolph is a co-inhabitant who has the authority to refuse the warrantless search as his wife is against his interests.

 Court's opinion

 Opinion or the official decision agreed by the judges regarding the matter at hand is that Randolph and his wife shared the premises and when people share premises,  the co-inhabitants has the authority to refuse warrantless a  search. Between co-tenants, there is no superior or inferior person and this means that each person must consider the interest of the other. Even though the respondent's wife allowed the police to search the evidence, the invite was a disputed invitation or rather a disputed permission that could restrict police to enter a dwelling (FindLaw. 2019). The Supreme Court puts emphasize on shared privacy. Justice Souter gives the opinion of the court by affirming that according to The Fourth Amendment, entry without a search warrant is considered valid if only the police obtain voluntary consent to search in a residence where the occupants share the authority (Bloom, 2003). In the case, Randolph and the wife shared the premises and one of the co-occupant (Randolph) was physically present and he rejected the warrantless search. Thus, the court confirms that the police officer did not have a search warrant or in other words, he did not justify the search for evidence to derive the evidence (Bloom, 2003).  In addition, the opposing party was physically present and he clearly stated his opposition. 

 With reference to the Fourth Amendment, the law enforcement agency violated the right to privacy since the co-occupant was present and presented his objection.  It is important to differentiate between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The police officer relied upon a reasonable suspicion rather than using probable cause and warrant. According to The Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials should adhere to the constitutional ethics and before using the warrantless entries, they should make an informed decision (Bloom, 2003). The Fourth Amendment condemned warrantless entry and lack of probable cause and for this reason, the respondent and his wife have the possession and control of their tangible property and, the authority from a single individual is insufficient. In this case, the third party does not have autonomy and the law enforcement agency should balance the consenter's autonomy and co-occupant genuine privacy (Bloom, 2003). The two individuals shared social expectation and this means that no one had the power to grant the consent.  The judges argue that the respondent and his wife are equal partners.

The dissenting opinion

 Judges Scalia and Roberts expressed their disagreement opinion and argued that the police warrantless search was reasonable since Mrs. Randolph gave the police the authority.  In this case,  the judges focus on women's equality and argue that  Mr. and Mrs. Randolph shared common authority per se, Matlock, supra, at 171 (FindLaw. 2019). Despite the opinion of the majority that individuals who share a resident have a common social expectation, the dissenting judges argue that the objections of the respondents do not comply with the agreement of the wife for a warrantless search or in other words, no one meets the expectations or the interest of the other. The majority opinion is arbitrary and obscure since they argue that the refusal of co-occupant makes the search unreasonable (FindLaw. 2019). However, the search was reasonable since Mrs. Randolph permitted the police to enter and solve the domestic disputes and she also needed a protective presence. Thus, police have a good reason to enter the residence and handle the threat of violence per se, Ante, at 13-14 (FindLaw. 2019). Again, the police have the legal authority to search for the evidence using a search warrant. Initially, the police requested the permission to search from the wife and since the initial search gave evidence, the police obtained an original search warrant to find more evidence (FindLaw. 2019). According to the rules of U.S constitution concerning the search and seizure, a roommate has the power to allow the police to enter the apartment and look for the evidence. The dissenting judges concluded that the modern property law gives equal right to both man and woman and no one possesses the power over the property (Bloom, 2003). Thus, man and woman are equal per se, Ante, at 2, and no one had the power to obstruct the wishes of the other.

 

 

References

Bloom, R. M. (2003). Searches, seizures, and warrants: A reference guide to the United States

Constitution. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

 

 FindLaw. (2019). GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH [04-1067].  Retrieved from:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/547/103.html