Georgia v Randolph - Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Kara Chrispen CJS 305-01 Georgia v. Randolph FACTS: A women complained to the police that after a dispute he took their son away, and when the police arrived at the house she told them that he was a cocaine user whose habits have caused financial troubles. She said that there was marital troubles and that her and her son had just recently returned after staying at her parents. Scott Randolph returned and explained that he took their son to their neighbor’s house because he did not want his wife to take his son out of the country again. He denied the cocaine use and told the police that his wife abused drugs and alcohol. Janet Randolph went with Officer Murray to get her son and claimed that there was items of drug evidence in the house. Murray asked Scott if he could search the house and he refused. Murray then asked Janet if he could search the house and she said yes and led him to Scott’s bedroom where Murray saw a drinking straw with a powdery residue. Murray went to get an evidence bag in his car and when he returned Janet withdrew her consent. The police took the straw and the Randolph’s to the police station. The police got a search warrant and returned to the house and found further evidence on the basis of which Scott Randolph was indicted for possession of cocaine. QUESTION: Is warrantless entry into the home reasonable? NO OPINION: SOUTER 1. The exception for consent extends even to entries and searches with the permission of a cooccupant whom the police reasonably, but erroneously, believe to possess shared authority as an occupant. 2. Significance given to widely shared social expectations. 3. Shared tenancy is understood to include an “assumption of risk” on which police officers are entitled to rely, and although some group living together might make an exceptional arrangement. 4. Overnight houseguests have a legitimate expectation of privacy on their temporary quarters because it is unlikely that the host will admit someone who wants to see or meet with the guest over the objection of the guest. 5. Unless the people living together fall within some recognized hierarchy, like a household of parent and child or barracks housing military personnel of different grades, there is no societal understanding of superior or inferior, a fact reflected in a standard formulation of domestic property law. 6. Since the co-tenant wishing to open the door to a third party has no recognized authority in law or social practice to prevail over present and objecting co-tenant, his disputed invitation without more, gives a police officer no better claim to reasonableness in entering than the officer would have tin the absence of any consent at all. DISSENT: Roberts, Scalia 1. There is risk with living with someone. 2. One tenant may consent to a search when the other is napping and they may not want the house to be searched. 3. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it. 4. Like in U.S. v White, there is always the risk of your companion telling on you....