Georgia+v.+Randolph

 4th Amendment  Scott Randolph was arrested in his home for possession of cocaine. The police had searched his house without a warrant because Randolph's wife gave them permission. Even though his wife gave permission, Randolph denied the police's request. The police searched anyway because of the wife's consent and consequently, found his cocaine. The trial court ruled for Randolph's prosecution because they felt that the police had sufficient permission from the wife. The Georgia Appellate court and Georgia Supreme court felt that the search of Randolph's home was a violation of the 4th amendment due to the fact that Randolph did not give his consent. The U.S. supreme court ruled 5-3 that the search was **__unconstitutional__ __.__ If two occupants are living in the house, the police needs the consent from both occupants to conduct a search.
 * Georgia v. Randolph (2006)**

C.J. Robert's dissenting opinion stated that there were circumstances that allowed police to enter the home with only the wife's consent. There was enough reason to believe that Randolph had possession of illegal substances. He related his dissent to a previous case of domestic violence where the husband said the police could not enter. Even though they did not see or hear any domestic violence, the husband did lie saying his wife wasn't home, even though she appeared at the door only moments later. In his opinion, the police had enough reason to enter the home. **