Pubdate: Thu, 23 Mar 2006
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Page: 2A
Copyright: 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Jess Bravin
Note: the ruling, 51 pages 
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1067.pdf
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Fourth+Amendment
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/warrantless+searches
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?247 (Crime Policy - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raids.htm (Drug Raids)

SUPREME COURT STRENGTHENS PROTECTION AGAINST SEARCHES

Objection by One Resident Precludes Warrantless Entry Despite 
Another's Permission

WASHINGTON -- Strengthening Fourth Amendment protections against 
warrantless searches, the Supreme Court ruled that police can't enter 
a house over a resident's objection simply because a second occupant 
invites them in.

Chief Justice John Roberts led the three dissenters, reflecting his 
longstanding deference to police.

The opinions recalled debates that have marked the court since the 
1950s, when, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, it began imposing rules 
to deter police misconduct. Justice Samuel Alito sat out because the 
case was argued before his confirmation, but he has written elsewhere 
of his disagreement with Warren Court criminal-procedure cases.

The ruling by Justice David Souter was grounded in those doctrines, 
which have limited warrantless searches when a third party, such as a 
landlord or hotel clerk, has let police into an absent tenant's 
quarters. "We have, after all, lived our whole national history with 
an understanding of 'the ancient adage that a man's home is his 
castle,'" Justice Souter wrote, citing a 1958 opinion by his 
predecessor, Justice William Brennan.

Yesterday's case originated with a 2001 marital dispute in Americus, 
Ga. Janet Randolph told police that her husband, Scott, used cocaine 
and that the house held "drug evidence." Mr. Randolph refused when an 
officer asked permission to search the premises. The officer turned 
to Mrs. Randolph, who led him to Mr. Randolph's bedroom, where the 
officer found a drinking straw with cocaine residue.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled the search violated the Fourth 
Amendment, which bars "unreasonable searches and seizures" of 
"persons, houses, papers and effects." The state appealed.

Although the Constitution generally provides that police obtain a 
warrant before conducting a search, there are "reasonable" 
exceptions, such as to prevent imminent harm or if the party consents.

"The constant element...is the great significance given to widely 
shared social expectations," Justice Souter wrote. "There is no 
common understanding that one co-tenant" can "prevail over the 
express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the 
curtains or invitations to outsiders." Few visitors would enter a 
house at "one occupant's invitation...when a fellow tenant stood 
there saying, 'stay out.'" That distinguished the case from a 1974 
Supreme Court decision allowing one tenant to let police search while 
a co-tenant wasn't home. People who share housing "understand that 
any one of them may admit visitors, with the consequence that a guest 
obnoxious to one may nevertheless be admitted in his absence by 
another," he wrote.

Chief Justice Roberts's dissent said "the court creates 
constitutional law by surmising what is typical when a social guest 
encounters an entirely atypical situation." Many "social conventions 
may shape expectations about how we act when another shares with us 
what is otherwise private," he wrote. But "if an individual shares 
information, papers, or places with another, he assumes the risk that 
the other person will in turn share access to that information or 
those papers or places with the government." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake