Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Georgia v. Randolph

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentconsentco-tenantobjecting occupantwarrantless searchconsent searchshared dwelling

Facts

Police responded to a domestic dispute at the Randolph residence after Janet Randolph complained about her husband and later told officers there were items of drug evidence in the house. When Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for permission to search, Scott unequivocally refused. The officer then obtained Janet Randolph's consent, and she led him to an upstairs bedroom where he saw a drinking straw with powdery residue he suspected was cocaine. The officer stopped the search, later obtained a warrant, and further evidence was seized; Scott moved to suppress on the ground that his wife's consent could not override his express refusal while he was present.

Issue

Whether police may conduct a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence based on one occupant's consent when another occupant is physically present at the scene and expressly refuses consent. More specifically, the question was whether such a search is reasonable as to the objecting occupant under the Fourth Amendment.

Rule

A warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence is not reasonable as to a physically present resident who expressly refuses consent, even if another resident with shared authority consents. Co-occupant consent remains sufficient when the objecting occupant is absent and there is no evidence police removed him to avoid objection, but disputed consent at the threshold does not justify entry.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Columbus, Ohio, go to a duplex after a tip about stolen electronics. At the front door, roommate Lena Ortiz tells officers they may come in and look around the shared living room, but roommate Devin Cole is standing beside her and says, "No, you are not coming in without a warrant."

If officers enter anyway and search the shared living room for evidence, is the search reasonable as to Devin?

Explanation. The majority held that when a co-occupant is physically present and expressly refuses consent, that refusal controls as to him. Another resident's consent does not make a warrantless evidentiary search reasonable against the objector, even in a common area. The rule turns on present, express objection, not superior property title.