These are the facts: Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet, were having marital problems. In May 2001 she took her clothing and their 6-year-old son to her parents' home in Canada. Two months later she came home with the child. It was not a happy reunion. On the morning of July 6 she called the Americus, Ga., police to complain that her husband had disappeared with the boy. Helpfully, she told the cops that her husband was sniffing cocaine.
Randolph shortly returned. Fearing that his wife might take off again for Canada, he had taken the boy to a neighbor's house. He too was eager to help support the cause of law and order. He informed Sgt. Brett Murray that his wife was an alcoholic who sometimes was "highly inebriated." Standing outside, as the Court of Appeals observed, "they were hurling accusations of wrongdoing at one another."
Murray asked Randolph for consent to search the residence. He responded with an unequivocal "no." Murray persisted. He turned to Mrs. Randolph and asked for her consent. She was still sore. Without further ado, she escorted Murray to an upstairs bedroom. On a dresser was a drinking straw. A white residue on the tip appeared to be cocaine.
To shorten the story: Officer Murray belatedly obtained a warrant. Mrs. Randolph, now repentant, announced that she was withdrawing her consent. No matter. Too late! The ensuing search turned up "numerous drug-related items." Eventually a grand jury indicted Randolph for possession of cocaine. Before the case could go to trial, he moved to suppress. The trial court denied his motion, but Georgia's Court of Appeals reversed: It was "inherently reasonable" for police to honor Randolph's express objection. "Allowing a wife's consent to search to override her husband's previous assertion of his right to privacy threatens domestic tranquility."
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Although three dissenting justices felt that Mrs. Randolph's consent "was sufficient to authorize the search," the majority felt emphatically otherwise:
"The consent to conduct a warrantless search of a residence given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another occupant who is physically present at the scene." Janet's consent was valid only so long as her husband was somewhere else. But he was there, on the lawn, fuming, and he did object. The Americus police thus lost their authority. "Any other rule exalts expediency over an individual's Fourth Amendment guarantees."
The Randolph case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court midway in the term that begins in October. The outcome will depend heavily upon the durability of the case of William Matlock. He was a small-time felon, indicted for bank robbery in Wisconsin 30 years ago. He lived in extramarital cohabitation with his common-law wife, Gayle Graff, in Pardeeville, 30 miles north of Madison. At the time, such cohabitation was a criminal offense in Wisconsin.
Evidently, like the Randolphs in Georgia, the couple had their domestic problems. On a November day in 1970, she led the cops to a bedroom they shared in a home owned by her family. There the cops found the loot stashed in a diaper bag in a closet. Matlock naturally moved to suppress. The evidence had been obtained without a warrant and of course without his consent. The question submitted to the high court was whether the search and seizure violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Speaking through Justice Byron White, the court held 6-3 that the evidence must be admitted. Mrs. Graff's permission, granted against her own self-interest, was sufficient justification for a warrantless search.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote a solo dissent. Justice William Brennan, joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall, wrote another. The cops' failure to obtain a warrant, said Douglas, was fatal to the state's case. There had been abundant time for getting approval from a judge. Brennan agreed that the invasion of Matlock's privacy was "constitutionally prohibited." The evidence should have been excluded.
In the case at hand, my sympathies lie with Scott Randolph, rather than with the cops or with the wife who ratted on him. My guess, on the other hand, is that the Georgia court will be affirmed.
(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
Thank you for your wonderful service, I was able to get some interviews using LawCrossing. Krista
Facts
LawCrossing Fact #157: Since we charge our users a minimal fee, they have access to many jobs available around the country!
Facebook comments:
Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
total jobs
135,283
New Legal Jobs in Last 7 Days
13,532
post your resume
Make your resume viewable to thousands of employers.
