Georgia v. Randolph U.S. Supreme Court case

Georgia v. Randolph

Statement of Procedural Status. Georgia v Randolph was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 22, 2006. The case had previously been heard by the Sumter Superior Court, at which time the defendant's motion to suppress had been granted, and the Georgia Supreme Court which also supported the defendant.

Relevant Facts. In the case, the defendant had been convicted of cocaine possession. His wife had authorized consent for a police search of the family home. The defendant had unequivocally refused consent for a search of the premises at the same time. Whereas in similar cases police had obtained consent from one resident and others were not present, in this case there were two residents present. One gave consent and the other refused. At issue is whether the police were able to ignore the refusal, given the consent of the other resident. During the course of the search, the police found evidence of drug use. The police returned to the house, at which time the wife refused consent. With the evidence in hand, however, the police were able to secure a search warrant. It was on the basis of this subsequent search that the evidence was gathered that lead to the conviction of Mr. Randolph. The appellate court quashed the evidence, and that ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Summary of the Holding. The court decided in a 5-3 vote to side with the defendant and suppress the evidence. The court held that consent on one resident is insufficient is another resident specifically refuses consent. This represents a clarification on previous rules wherein evidence was obtained when one resident was not present at the time consent was obtained. In this instance, Mr. Randolph was present and had specifically refused consent. The court ruled that his presence and specific refusal could not be overlooked.

Summary of the Ruling. Previous Fourth Amendment rulings had held that searches where consent was not obtained from an absent person could be used. In Georgia v Randolph, the distinguishing factor was that Mr. Randolph was present and had specifically refused consent. The evidence used against him was obtained during the warrant search, which was obtained on the basis of the original, non-warrant search that Mr. Randolph had refused. The ruling held that any evidence ultimately derived from that original, non-warrant search could not be used against Mr. Randolph, on the basis of his unequivocal refusal to consent. The court pointed out that this case does not supercede cases such as Rodriguez, which are still applicable. For the search to be unlawful requires explicit refusal by a present resident of the home.