Souter denounces first dissent written by Roberts

[kurth]

Court rejects searches when occupants disagree

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the police cannot enter a home and seize evidence without a warrant when one occupant agreed to the search after the other occupant refused permission. By a 5-3 vote, the high court said the husband's refusal in a case from Georgia was clear, making the search unreasonable and invalid, despite his wife's approval for it. The narrowly written ruling was a defeat for the state of Georgia and for the U.S. Justice Department, which had argued that the search of a residence should be allowed when one occupant consents, even if the other occupant objects.

The court's three most conservative members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, opposed the ruling. It was the first dissent written by Roberts, who joined the court at the end of September, and Justice David Souter sharply denounced it in writing for the majority. Under the dissent's view, he wrote, "The centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

The case involved Scott Randolph, who was charged with cocaine possession. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, which had been seized by the police during a search in 2001 of the home that he shared with his wife. The wife, Janet Randolph, had called the police and asked for them to come to the couple's house in Americus, Georgia, because of a domestic dispute with her husband. The couple previously had separated. She told the officers that Randolph had been using cocaine, which was causing the couple financial and other problems. She said drugs were on the premises. An officer asked if he could check the house and Randolph, a lawyer, refused to give his consent. The officer then asked the wife, who gave her approval.

In the bedroom, the officer saw a drinking straw and suspected it had been used to ingest cocaine. The officer took the straw and some white residue to the police station for testing. A 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 house, one occupant's consent is not valid if the other person is present and objects...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-03-22T161657Z_01_N18657202_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-POLICE.xml

[KharmaTrain]

1. ScAlito Voted With The Majority??????

Isn't this the second time he's left the reservation?

[TayTay]

He abstained

as he wasn't present for the original arguments.

The score was 5-3. One vote was missing.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. I was wondering the same thing!

[kurth]

4. "Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case"

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Breyer, J., filed concurring opinions. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed dissenting opinions. Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. - FindLaw

[WI_DEM]

2. The three most conservative members of the court

doesn't include Alito? interesting.

[dragonlady]

Alito probably wasn't there yet for the oral argument

so he didn't vote. The decision was only 5-3. Guess how he would have voted.

[global1]

5. "The centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over"

Wow - I wonder if he said that during the confirmation hearings he would be sitting on the SC today?

[calico1]

7. Well, for those of you who thought he was a

"moderate" I think its pretty clear now what his philosophy is.

[Kingshakabobo]

9. I can't believe my eyes!

Did he really have the nerve to say that?

I like how tries to justify his defense of his desired jack-booted tactics by bringing up an abused spouse scenario. I don't need 5 years of law school and 20 years in some conservative think-tank to know that ANY accusation of spousal abuse can(should) result in immediate investigation and arrest of the perpetrator. If the victim stands on the front porch and makes an accusation of violence the police can enter the premises to diffuse the situation and make an arrest of "the napping spouse on the couch." Also, if they have evidence of a violent crime in progress and the suspect is blocking the door they don't need a warrant to enter. Straw-man argument.

[bowens43]

6. Luckily the jack-booted thugs

were prevented from taking away more of our constitutionally protected rights.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

8. A 5-4 Ruling....

If alito had been able to vote, that's what it would have been.

The court is hanging by a thread.

[CottonBear]

10. The ruling is good news for Georgia. We still have fair judges here.

"But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that when two people have equal use and control of the house, one occupant's consent is not valid if the other person is present and objects..."