home

Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:04:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

When the police want to search a residence, a savvy occupant will just say no -- at least when the police have no search warrant. But what if the police keep asking residents until they find someone who says yes?

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether one occupant may give the police consent to search a residence, even though the other occupant already has objected.

Scott Fitz Randolph's wife called the police to report a domestic dispute. She told the arriving officers that Randolph had drugs on the premises. Randolph refused their request to search for the drugs, so the officers asked the wife, who consented.

The trial court upheld the search because the wife had authority along with her husband to allow the police to search their home. But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that when two people have equal use and control of the premises, one occupant's consent is not valid when the other objects.

< Religion v. Drug Laws | Book Criticizes Elizabeth Smart Investigation >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    Its called a police state, right now we still have some human and civil rights, but soon that will just be one more myth of a non free world.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    That's a tricky one, but I have to say thatmy intuitive response is that the trial court called it right. OTOH, though, I can see a reasonable argument for not allowing such evidence to be used in a criminal proceeding to the detriment of the known objector, but my problem is that the theory that would support that wouldn't allow the consent of a third-party with control of the property to be conclusive even when the target wasn't a "known objector", as I see it.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#3)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    I’m confused as to why consent was needed. They had information from a reliable source (for god sake she lived in the house and had seen the drugs) that a crime was being committed. Reminds me of a time I tried to kick a cop out of an apartment I had in college. It was a house that was divided up into several apartments and he refused to leave the common areas until everyone in the entire house had objected to him being there. The guy was VERY unreasonable and I was seriously afraid it was going to escalate into something violent. I eventually lodged a complaint and later learned he was fired based on several complaints including one over an incident where he tackled and cuffed a woman in her wedding dress. He pulled the couple over for littering; one of the cans tied to their bumper had come loose. She was indignant, then a tussle, then the cuffs.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    This will shake out that any lawful occupant can give consent for common and personal areas. That will leave off-limits all personal areas accessable only to the objecting party. Who wants to bet? It's just like a probation/parole 4th waiver in a house where the other person is not on parole/probation.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    cmdicely, I wobbled too, but then I thought the law should err on the side of the person wanting to keep their civil liberties. If the police think they might have a case then do some police work and build one. They also only asked the wife after the husband had said no. Venue shopping anyone? An irate spouse is not a 'reliable source.' They frequently make bogus claims, even after advice of counsel, (see 'custody battle') And since there are no separate personal areas, it would be one adult consenting for another. In this case, you may have missed that the wife "When the officer returned to his car to get an evidence bag, the wife withdrew her consent for the search." I don't doubt it may come down the way you say patrick. Another interesting POV, is that she goes to jail too for the drugs.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#6)
    by john horse on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    I know that this is getting a little off topic but one thing that everyone should do is get educated about how to handle encounters with law enforcement. Something that I found helpful was a book that a friend of mine had called "Beat The Heat" by Katya Komisaruk. Its kind of an idiots guide to dealing with police - what to do and say, what not to do and say, cartoon illustrated, serious as a heart attack but with a sense of humor. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to your rights.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    Good point Mr Horse, the ACLU also publishes excellent guides, for whatever situation you might find yourself in. Rather than list any specific link, please google 'aclu guide'. OTOH, cops are bullies, lie and commit perjury as a living ... your mileage may vary in the real world.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:19:04 PM EST
    A cop friend once told me their best weapon is that most people do not know or understand their basic rights. NEVER consent to a search without a warrant!

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    If ANY legal occupant objects to their home being searched WITHOUT A WARRANT, then that should overrule any other legal occupant from authorizing a search. No lives were in danger. They were attempting to further the inquiry into a NON violent crime. There should be no grounds for a warrantless search based only upon one occupant's claim. At least in a free country.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    In a FREE country, people have the right to waiver their rights. Whether or not they should depends on the cirumstances.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#11)
    by chupetin on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    I get woken up by my wife telling me the cops are at the door. There is about 5 officers at my door saying that one of the neighbors complained about too much noise. I told the officer that everyone in my house was asleep and that we did'nt near any noise. By this time my daugter and my grandkids had been awakened and we are all standing in the living room in our PJs and stuff. The cops said that they wanted to search the house anyway. My wife asked them if he they had a warrant. The officers response was to put his flashlight in her face, forcing her back as they all came in. He said that they didnt need one. They looked around the house and even went into the back yard saying that they needed to make sure that there was no dead bodies back there. I also noticed some runt of a cop standing by my back gate. They left after that and lucky for me most cops are idiots. Lets just say if they were smart, I would have been in some trouble. Anyway, turns out the source of the disturbance was the kids in the house next to mine playing video games with the volume loud. For that they sent out a total of 7 incompetent cops that went to the wrong house anyway. I have a lot of personal stories like that and cops wonder why people dont respect them.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:14:57 AM EST
    Patrick you twit, one person cannot waive the rights of another. Pick up a f***ing law book sometime.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#13)
    by Patrick on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:23:49 AM EST
    Che, You moron, that's not what I said is it?

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:43:59 AM EST
    This one is going to be a unanimous opinion reversing the Georgia Supreme Court and affirming the trial court. In my mind the only issue is why. I think that both a probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances and extigent circumstances were present argument, and an argument that any co-tenant can consent to a search both make sense. The case most on point in my mind is the case where the husband had sex with a prostitute in a car that he owned jointly with his wife, resulting in its forfeiture, and the Supreme Court held that forfeiture due to a filandering husband is one of the risks you take when you are a joint owner of property.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:53:34 AM EST
    I have a lot of personal stories like that and cops wonder why people dont respect them.
    some funny and some not so funny. "you twit", "you moron" i just love the balanced exchanges in this space. hehe!

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:24:43 AM EST
    Outside, All my communications training says you need to speak at the level of the person you are trying to communicate with. Che apparently needs small words and profanity, sorry if you were bothered by it.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#18)
    by chupetin on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    How about getting pulled over and hassled because "you fit the description of someone who (insert crime here)". For a while I thought someone had succesfully cloned me and set about 20 of my clones on crime sprees. But then I realized cops are pathological liars.

    Re: Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    Patrick, Your comment seemed to infer that if one person waives their rights, then that would supercede the rights of, in this case, another occupant. How do you really mean it? Am I the only one who interpr