Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSouter
Citation547 U.S. 103,164 L. Ed. 2d 208,126 S. Ct. 1515
PartiesGEORGIA <I>v.</I> RANDOLPH
Docket NumberNo. 04-1067.
Decision Date22 March 2006
547 U.S. 103
126 S. Ct. 1515
164 L. Ed. 2d 208
GEORGIA
v.
RANDOLPH
No. 04-1067.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued November 8, 2005.
Decided March 22, 2006.

Respondent's estranged wife gave police permission to search the marital residence for items of drug use after respondent, who was also present, had unequivocally refused to give consent. Respondent was indicted for possession of cocaine, and the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence as products of a warrantless search unauthorized by consent. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that consent given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another physically present occupant, and distinguished United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, which recognized the permissibility of an entry made with the consent of one co-occupant in the other's absence.

Held: In the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid as to him. Pp. 109-123.

(a) The Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects. Matlock, supra, at 170; Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 186. The constant element in assessing Fourth Amendment reasonableness in such cases is the great significance given to widely shared social expectations, which are influenced by property law but not controlled by its rules. Thus, Matlock not only holds that a solitary co-inhabitant may sometimes consent to a search of shared premises, but also stands for the proposition that the reasonableness of such a search is in significant part a function of commonly held understandings about the authority that co-inhabitants may exercise in ways that affect each other's interests. Pp. 109-111.

(b) Matlock's example of common understanding is readily apparent. The assumption tenants usually make about their common authority when they share quarters is that any one of them may admit visitors, with the consequence that a guest obnoxious to one may be admitted in his absence. Matlock placed no burden on the police to eliminate the possibility of atypical arrangements, absent reason to doubt that the regular scheme was in place. Pp. 111-112.

[547 U.S. 104]

(c) This Court took a step toward addressing the issue here when it held in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91, that overnight houseguests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their temporary quarters. If that customary expectation is a foundation of a houseguest's Fourth Amendment rights, it should follow that an inhabitant of shared premises may claim at least as much. In fact, a co-inhabitant naturally has an even stronger claim. No sensible person would enter shared premises based on one occupant's invitation when a fellow tenant said to stay out. Such reticence would show not timidity but a realization that when people living together disagree over the use of their common quarters, a resolution must come through voluntary accommodation, not by appeals to authority. Absent some recognized hierarchy, e. g., parent and child, there is no societal or legal understanding of superior and inferior as between co-tenants. Pp. 113-114.

(d) Thus, a disputed invitation, without more, gives an officer no better claim to reasonableness in entering than the officer would have absent any consent. Disputed permission is no match for the Fourth Amendment central value of "respect for the privacy of the home," Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 610, and the State's other countervailing claims do not add up to outweigh it.

A co-tenant who has an interest in bringing criminal activity to light or in deflecting suspicion from himself can, e. g., tell the police what he knows, for use before a magistrate in getting a warrant. This case, which recognizes limits on evidentiary searches, has no bearing on the capacity of the police, at the invitation of one tenant, to enter a dwelling over another tenant's objection in order to protect a resident from domestic violence. Though alternatives to disputed consent will not always open the door to search for evidence that the police suspect is inside, nothing in social custom or its reflection in private law argues for placing a higher value on delving into private premises to search for evidence in the face of disputed consent, than on requiring clear justification before the government searches private living quarters over a resident's objection. Pp. 114-120.

(e) There are two loose ends. First, while Matlock's explanation for the constitutional sufficiency of a co-tenant's consent to enter and search recognized a co-inhabitant's "right to permit the inspection in his own right," 415 U. S., at 171, n. 7, the right to admit the police is not a right as understood under property law. It is, instead, the authority recognized by customary social usage as having a substantial bearing on Fourth Amendment reasonableness in specific circumstances. The question here is whether customary social understanding accords the consenting tenant authority to prevail over the co-tenant's objection, a question Matlock did not answer. Second, a fine line must be drawn to

[547 U.S. 105]

avoid undercutting Matlock—where the defendant, though not present, was in a squad car not far away—and Rodriguez—where the defendant was asleep in the apartment and could have been roused by a knock on the door; if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant's permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not part of the threshold colloquy, loses out. Such formalism is justified. So long as there is no evidence that the police have removed the potentially objecting tenant from the entrance specifically to avoid a possible objection, there is practical value in the simple clarity of complementary rules, one recognizing the co-tenant's permission when no fellow occupant is on hand, the other according dispositive weight to the fellow occupant's expressed contrary indication. Pp. 120-122.

(f) Here, respondent's refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of his wife's consent. Pp. 122-123.

278 Ga. 614, 604 S. E. 2d 835, affirmed.

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., post, p. 123, and BREYER, J., post, p. 125, filed concurring opinions. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. 127. SCALIA, J., post, p. 142, and THOMAS, J., post, p. 145, filed dissenting opinions. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, and Mary Beth Westmoreland, Deputy Attorney General.

Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richter, Sri Srinivasan, and Deborah Watson.

Thomas C. Goldstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Donald F. Samuel, and Pamela S. Karlan.*

[547 U.S. 106]

JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.


The Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless entry and search of premises when police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, authority over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177 (1990); United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). The question here is whether such an evidentiary seizure is likewise lawful with the permission of one occupant when the other, who later seeks to suppress the evidence, is present at the scene and expressly refuses to consent. We hold that, in the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.

I

Respondent Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet, separated in late May 2001, when she left the marital residence in Americus, Georgia, and went to stay with her parents in Canada, taking their son and some belongings. In July, she returned to the Americus house with the child, though the record does not reveal whether her object was reconciliation or retrieval of remaining possessions.

547 U.S. 107

On the morning of July 6, she complained to the police that after a domestic dispute her husband took their son away, and when officers reached the house she told them that her husband was a cocaine user whose habit had caused financial troubles. She mentioned the marital problems and said that she and their son had only recently returned after a stay of several weeks with her parents. Shortly after the police arrived, Scott Randolph returned and explained that he had removed the child to a neighbor's house out of concern that his wife might take the boy out of the country again; he denied cocaine use, and countered that it was in fact his wife who abused drugs and alcohol.

One of the officers, Sergeant Murray, went with Janet Randolph to reclaim the child, and when they returned she not only renewed her complaints about her husband's drug use, but also volunteered that there were "`items of drug evidence'" in the house. Brief for Petitioner 3. Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house, which he unequivocally refused.

The sergeant turned to Janet...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1355 practice notes
  • Ermini v. Scott, Case No: 2:15-cv-701-FtM-99CM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • April 5, 2017
    ...City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1774–75, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015). See also Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 118, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) ("it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering [a residence]...t......
  • U.S. v. Gray, No. 05-4397.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 2, 2007
    ...place. Co-tenants, co-owners, and co-occupants can also avail themselves of the Fourth Amendment's protections. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 1526, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006). And, travelers are entitled to be free from unreasonable government scrutiny in their hotel an......
  • Anderson v. City of West Bend Police Dep't, Case No. 09–CV–840.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • February 28, 2011
    ...on the premises, they were also permitted to take any further action that was supported by probable cause. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 118, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) (“since the police would then be lawfully in the premises, there is no question that they could seize......
  • U.S. v. Werra, No. 09–1593.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 22, 2011
    ...... have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.”); cf. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) (holding that “a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails”). The government d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1338 cases
  • Ermini v. Scott, Case No: 2:15-cv-701-FtM-99CM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • April 5, 2017
    ...City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1774–75, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015). See also Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 118, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) ("it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering [a residence]...t......
  • U.S. v. Gray, No. 05-4397.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 2, 2007
    ...place. Co-tenants, co-owners, and co-occupants can also avail themselves of the Fourth Amendment's protections. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 1526, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006). And, travelers are entitled to be free from unreasonable government scrutiny in their hotel an......
  • Anderson v. City of West Bend Police Dep't, Case No. 09–CV–840.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • February 28, 2011
    ...on the premises, they were also permitted to take any further action that was supported by probable cause. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 118, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) (“since the police would then be lawfully in the premises, there is no question that they could seize......
  • U.S. v. Werra, No. 09–1593.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 22, 2011
    ...... have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.”); cf. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) (holding that “a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails”). The government d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • When Can the Police Lie? The Limits of Law Enforcement Officers' Use of Deception in Obtaining Consent to Search a Home.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 55 Nbr. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...231-32 (1973). (108.) Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 590 (1st Cir. 2019). (109.) Id. at 591 (quoting Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 109 (110.) See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 221-22, 226-27. (111.) See Pagan-Gonzalez, 919 F.3d at 591 (quoting United States v. Vanvliet, 542 F.3d 25......
  • Criminal Justice Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 Term
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 31-4, December 2006
    • December 1, 2006
    ...v. Chavez, 126 S.Ct. 1491 (2006).Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006).Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (2006).Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 126 S.Ct. 1211 (2006).Gonzales v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 904 Hamdan v. Rumsfe......
  • Ideological Divisiveness in Criminal Procedure Cases
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 41-4, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013).Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015).Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).Harris v. United S......
  • Law Enforcement Case Law
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 32-3, September 2007
    • September 1, 2007
    ...v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990).326 Criminal Justice Review Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. —, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (2006).Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).Illinois v. Gates, 464 U.S. 213 (1983).Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).Mapp v. O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT