{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

CB Georgia v. Randolph - Rational Since the nonconsenting...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Georgia v. Randolph 547 U.S. 103 (2006) Fact: Procedural Facts: Operative Facts: Scott and Janet were separated, and Janet moved out of the house. A couple months later, she came back, and complained to an officer about Scott taking their son away. Scott came back, and the officer and Janet got the son from the neighbor that he dropped him off at. Janet then said that Scott was a drug user, and volunteered that evidence was inside the house. Officer asked for consent from Scott, he refused, then asked from Janet, and she accepted, and walked them up the drug use area. Officer then went to get evidence bags, and came back to gather more evidence on the basis of which Scott was indicted for possession of cocaine. Issue: Did Scott’s refusal to consent enough to negate Janet’s consent? Rule: Consent from a 3 rd party with common authority over the premises or effects is valid against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}