Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The Supremes protect your home from unreasonable search
And look who is writing in dissent. In case you didn't guess, it was the Dread Chief Justice Roberts and his scurvy mate Scalia and the Cabin Boy Thomas. Scurvy other mate Alito was too late to join the party.
In a 5-to-3 decision, the justices sided with Scott F. Randolph of Americus, Ga., who was charged with cocaine possession in 2001 after his wife, Janet, called the police during a domestic dispute, complained that her husband was using cocaine and then led the officers to a bedroom, where there was evidence of cocaine abuse.Even those folks in GA disagree with the Dread Chief Justice Roberts. I guess the Constitution takes a back seat if you have an agenda
The issue before the justices was one that has long caused confusion in state courts: whether the police can search a home without a warrant if one occupant gives consent but another occupant, who is physically present, says "no." The majority held today that at least under some circumstances, such a search is invalid.
"Scott Randolph's refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of Janet Randolph's consent," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The result for Mr. Randolph, a lawyer, is that the cocaine-related evidence seized by the police and used to prosecute him must be thrown out, a conclusion that the Georgia Supreme Court reached earlier when it declared that since both marriage partners "had common control and authority" over the premises, the consent of both was needed to conduct a search without a warrant.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment