- Archives

Scott Randolph didn't want police to search his Americus, Ga., home after officers showed up to answer his wife's domestic disturbance call. She had no such reservations. She not only let them in, but led officers to evidence later used to charge Randolph with drug possession. The Supreme Court said Monday it will use the case to clarify when police can search homes. The high court previously has said searches based on a cohabitant's consent are OK, but it's not clear whether that applies when another resident is present and objects. Lower courts are divided on the issue, with most holding that consent from one person is sufficient. Randolph's wife called police on July 6, 2001, to report a disturbance and asked them to come to the house. The two had separated, but she had moved back in two days earlier with Randolph's consent. When police arrived, she complained that Randolph had taken away their son and had been using cocaine. Randolph returned a few minutes later, telling police the child was at a neighbor's home. Police then asked to search the house. and he objected. His wife, however, consented and led police to the couple's bedroom, where officers saw a straw with white powder. She later withdrew her consent, but police obtained a search warrant based on what the officers saw and seized evidence used to charge Randolph with drug possession. A trial court upheld the searches, but a Georgia appeals court, in a decision seconded by the state Supreme Court, reversed that ruling. In siding with Randolph, the courts ruled police must defer to an objecting occupant when two people have equal use and control of the home. [more]