Search and Seizure: When is it Reasonable?

Does sharing a home mean sharing privacy? If your partner or roommate is engaged in illegal activities, what rights do you have? Should police be able to enter a home if the wife agrees but the husband objects? What does privacy mean to you?

These are just some of the questions worth asking yourself in relation to the just-decided Supreme Court case Georgia v. Randolph. The Court decided that police can not enter a home and seize evidence without a warrant if one of the residents objects.

The case began when Janet Randolph called the police because of a domestic dispute with her husband. Mrs. Randolph allowed the police to enter and gather evidence of Mr. Randolph’s drug use, despite his objections. After Mr. Randolph, a lawyer was charged with cocaine possession, he worked to have the evidence suppressed because of the illegal search. A local trial court decided that one person’s consent was enough. But is it?

The arguments

According to the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, one resident’s consent is not valid if another resident is present and objects to a search. The majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s 5-3 ruling found that one resident’s objection makes police entry an "unreasonable search and seizure," as outlined by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The majority was comprised of Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven G. Breyer, and David H. Souter. The dissenters were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who were joined by the new Chief Justice.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote his first dissenting opinion in this case (although he cast two dissenting votes in previous cases), saying one person’s consent was sufficient because people choosing to share space have already chosen to share privacy.

Justice Souter strongly disagreed and in the footnotes to the majority opinion said, "in the dissent’s view, the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts expressed concern for domestic abuse victims, who he believes may be harmed by the ruling. The impact on battered women, however, is uncertain. Justice Souter pointed out that current law allows police to enter a home to assist a victim, including, if not especially, to assist domestic violence victims.

Some say that Chief Justice Roberts discussed domestic abuse in his dissent in hopes of winning the vote of Justice Breyer, who voiced concern over the issue during the trial.

Close Court

So far, the young Roberts court has seen a large number of unanimous decisions, 22 so far compared with just 27 in all of last term. This case represents a turning point as the Court moves past its easier cases and towards more controversial ones.

Although Alito was not yet on the bench for this trial, if he would have dissented with Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia it would have created a close 5-4 split that may become commonplace with this Court.

For analyses of upcoming Supreme Court cases, check back with WomenMatter and understand the processes behind the headlines.

What do you think?

Could this ruling harm domestic abuse victims? How much power should police have to search our homes? How important are warrants and should police be able to enter without one?

Your input matters

Your representatives in Congress DO care what you think. Especially now -- 2006 is an election year and many representatives will be looking to reconnect with their constituents. Let your congressmen and women know what you think! Give your senators a piece of your mind! To find your reps, click here.

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Posted on: 3/28/2006