Georgia v. Randolph
| Georgia v. Randolph | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 8, 2005 Decided March 22, 2006 | |
| Full case name | Georgia v. Scott Fitz Randolph |
| Docket no. | 04-1067 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 103 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1515; 164 L. Ed. 2d 208; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2498; 74 U.S.L.W. 4176 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant's motion to suppress evidence denied, State v. Randolph, Sumter Superior Court; reversed, 590 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003); cert. granted, Supreme Court of Georgia, April 28, 2004; affirmed, 604 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2004); cert. granted, sub. nom. Georgia v. Randolph, 125 S. Ct. 1840 (2005) |
| Holding | |
| In the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him. Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concurrence | Breyer |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Scalia |
| Dissent | Scalia |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant consent rule" established in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), which permitted one resident to consent in absence of the co-occupant.