Unformatted text preview: Rational: Since the nonconsenting person with the authority is shared is not absent, their consent would matter more. If a person needs to get permission from the occupants to allow someone else in, like a landlord or a hotel manager. Holding: Yes, Scott refusal of the search on the shared dwelling was enough to negate a consent of another shared resident. There may be other ways to search the property, but through warrants, this consent would not justify a warrantless search. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Justice Roberts and Scalia dissenting: Saying the source of the ruling is related to common social courtesy, not privacy, which is what is partly protected under the 4 th amendment. The rule is too random. It doesn’t protect privacy, it protects a lucky co-owner who just happens to be present at the door. Also he noted that it might hamper the idea need to fight domestic abuse. Refers to the “House is a man’s castle.”...
View Full Document
- Spring '11
- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution