We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.
Georgia v. Randolph
547 U.S. 103 (2006)
U.S. Supreme Court
On Friday July 6, 2001 in Americus, Georgia at approximately 9:00 a.m. Scott and Janet Randolph had a domestic dispute at their marital home. The dispute centered on the custody of their son. The couple was not divorced so there were no court orders hence both had custody rights. Mrs. Randolph was frustrated with the lack of support for the officers to take custody of her son. She explained to the officers that her husband had a cocaine problem and that there were drugs and drug paraphernalia inside the home.
Sgt. Brett Murray asked for consent to enter the home to look at the drugs and drug paraphernalia. Mrs. Randolph granted consent while Mr. Randolph, a local attorney, denied the officers entry. The officers went inside and found a drinking straw with a powdery residue they believed was cocaine. Sgt. Murray went to his cruiser for an evidence bag and called the District Attorney. The District Attorney told the sergeant to stop his search and obtain a search warrant. Upon Sgt. Murray’s return to the home Mrs. Randolph withdrew her consent. The sergeant obtained a search warrant, searched the home and found more drug paraphernalia. Mr. Randolph was indicted, and he filed a Motion to Suppress. The trial court denied the motion. Mr. Randolph appealed, and the Georgia appellate court overturned the trial court holding that law enforcement did not have the authority to cross the threshold of the Randolph home. The State of Georgia appealed, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the appellate court again holding law enforcement did not have consent to enter the home. The State of Georgia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which held “We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”.
Information for this article was obtained from Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), Georgia v. Randolph oral arguments, Randolph v. State, No. A03A0906.
Lessons Learned:
- When law enforcement is granted consent to enter a building by someone with dominion and control over that building while simultaneously being rejected entry by someone else with dominion and control, the officers cannot enter the building. In the Randolph holding it states in pertinent part “We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”. The holding specifically states dwelling, though in a similar fact pattern, any building with two people with dominion and control the same legal standard would apply.
- The Randolph holding further states in pertinent part “We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”. Here, both an express and implied refusal may also be legally relevant. If one person with dominion and control over the building grants consent to enter and the other person holds his hand up, palm facing out, in what is commonly known as STOP, that may be an implied refusal. So too would someone blocking the doorway with his body. These implied refusals would likely be held to refute law enforcement entry.
- The Randolph holding also states in pertinent part “We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”. The physically present element would be clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court eight years later in Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014).
- The Randolph case is specific to consensual entries into buildings. This case does not apply to an entry based on an arrest or search warrant or an exigent entry.
Does your agency train on Crossing the Threshold?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!
Robert H. Meader Esq.