Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
US Top Court to Decide Police Search Case
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether one occupant may give the police consent to search a residence, even though the other occupant already has objected.
US Top Court to Decide Police Search Case
Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:08 PM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether one occupant may give the police consent to search a residence, even though the other occupant already has objected.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Georgia attorneys who cited conflicting rulings on the issue by federal and state courts. They said the case presented "a question of paramount importance" for the Supreme Court.
The case involves Scott Fitz Randolph, who was charged in 2001 with cocaine possession. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, which had been seized during a search of the home he shared with his wife.
She had allowed the search after he had denied permission for it. He argued the search violated his constitutional right protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.
The wife called the local police on July 6, 2001, and asked for them to come to the couple's house in Americus, Georgia, because of a domestic dispute with her husband. The couple previously had separated.
She told the officers that Randolph had been using cocaine, which was causing them financial and other problems. She said drugs were on the premises.
One officer asked him if he could check the house and Randolph refused to give his consent. The officer then asked the wife, and she gave her approval. In the bedroom, the officer saw a drinking straw and suspected it had been used to ingest cocaine.
When the officer returned to his car to get an evidence bag, the wife withdrew her consent for the search.
The officer collected the items he had seen upstairs, including the straw and some white residue, and took them to the police station. The officer then obtained a search warrant.
The trial court upheld the search because the wife had authority along with her husband to allow the police to search their home.
But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that when two people have equal use and control of the premises, one occupant's consent is not valid when the other objects. Continued ...
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:08 PM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether one occupant may give the police consent to search a residence, even though the other occupant already has objected.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Georgia attorneys who cited conflicting rulings on the issue by federal and state courts. They said the case presented "a question of paramount importance" for the Supreme Court.
The case involves Scott Fitz Randolph, who was charged in 2001 with cocaine possession. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, which had been seized during a search of the home he shared with his wife.
She had allowed the search after he had denied permission for it. He argued the search violated his constitutional right protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.
The wife called the local police on July 6, 2001, and asked for them to come to the couple's house in Americus, Georgia, because of a domestic dispute with her husband. The couple previously had separated.
She told the officers that Randolph had been using cocaine, which was causing them financial and other problems. She said drugs were on the premises.
One officer asked him if he could check the house and Randolph refused to give his consent. The officer then asked the wife, and she gave her approval. In the bedroom, the officer saw a drinking straw and suspected it had been used to ingest cocaine.
When the officer returned to his car to get an evidence bag, the wife withdrew her consent for the search.
The officer collected the items he had seen upstairs, including the straw and some white residue, and took them to the police station. The officer then obtained a search warrant.
The trial court upheld the search because the wife had authority along with her husband to allow the police to search their home.
But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that when two people have equal use and control of the premises, one occupant's consent is not valid when the other objects. Continued ...
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
For more information:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
If someone was chasing me with a gun I still wouldnt call those
guys?
what are they gonna do? run away? most likely!