[GeorgiaDawg32]

I thought NO meant NO..isn't that what we've been taught for umpteen years??

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

"Michael Dreeben, an attorney for the Bush administration, which backs police in the case, said people should be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement. " In other words, "We're from the Government and we're just here to help you. Trust us."

[GrandEagle]

NOW, FINALLY a case fit for Supreme Court Review.Personally I would say that any NO trumps any yes. However, I can live with what the court says here. IF the police had just cause to search, then they would have had a search warrant.
Interesting to see how this one pans out.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Our system of laws are based on the English common law. Under English common law a man's house is sacred from government search.

KEEP OUT!

[planekT]

Michael Dreeben, an attorney for the Bush administration, which backs police in the case, said people should be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement. "Come on in boys, the coke's over there, right next to the pile of pirated DVD's." Yea, that's a good one. Any good defense attorney will tell you to forget your Constitutional rights and cooperate with the law. /s Note that the woman had moved the kid to Canada and was just picking up her things. Technically it might still be her residence, but clearly she was no longer living there. Bottom line for me is, one no and one yes doesn't equal a yes. Police should have gotten a search warrant first.

[L98Fiero]

OK, they can only search HALF the house.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Just a general observation. The article breathlessly mentions that Justice Thomas actually asked a couple of questions and seemed (in the mind of the reporterette) to be leaning in favor of the police. She then quotes several of the Justices but doesn't include one from Justice Thomas. The other observation is that, if specific seats on the Court now represent different constituencies, Justice O'Connor is ably representing the clueless.

[unixfox]

Still stomping on the Constitution I see. I hope these bastards are watching their backs. They will rue the day.

[Cboldt]

Supreme Court of Georgia - Case below (short)
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/s04g0674.pdf

One "no" trumps consent. The Georgia Supreme Court opinion has a dissenting opinion of three Justices who say that one "yes" constitutes permission.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067Pet.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067Resp.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1067PetReply.pdf

Links directly above are the briefs.

[sourcery]

Seems clear enough: Only the effects of those who consent to the search should be searchable, and anything found that relates to a party who did not consent would not be legally actionable.

[em2vn]

If the husband had said no on a previous police visit would that still be in force if the police arrived when only the wife was at home and she permitted a search.
If there is a way to get her name in the history books you can count on SDO to do it no matter how poorly her opinion stands in the light of the constitution.

[Labyrinthos]

Chief Justice John Roberts worried that if a home had 10 occupants, all 10 would have to agree before a search.

No, Judge Roberts, only the judge signing the warrant would have to consent.

This should really be an easy case if not for judges on the left and right trying to score political points. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against searches and seizures without a warrant. The right is absolute, without exception. Although I have the right to waive the warrant requirement and consent to a search, a waiver has to to be unequivical and consenual. Where two or more people own real property then both must consent because neither has the right to waive the fourth amendment on behalf of another person, particularly when that other person has clearly stated that they don't consent. End of case.

[Sir Gawain]

Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant.

That's the scarier part.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

If the husband says no, but the wife says yes, then anything incriminating that's found should be usable against the wife, but not the husband. Move over, Solomon.

[Antonello]

The dispute arose in 2001 when police in Americus, Ga., were called to a domestic dispute at the home of Scott Fitz Randolph and his wife, Janet.

This is enough for it to be fairly certain a judge would be willing to issue a search warrant.

Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant.

Combined with the above mentioned likelihood of a warrant being issued if requested, this stipulation from the defense is enough to make this clearly a case of inevitable discovery even if the search were to be deemed unconstitutional.

Several justices seemed sympathetic to the police, raising concerns that limits on searches would hamper domestic disturbance investigations.

This is reason enough to recognize that granting the power to refuse entry to the suspect by denying the victim the right to request police assistance would be a miscarriage of justice.

Bottom line: this case shouldn't have even made it to the Supreme Court.

[Wormwood]

Please take my rights, I wasn't using them anyway.

[Tench_Coxe]

Perhaps if the police acted like a collection agency, continuing to pester the homeowner until they get an angry " yes, da**it " at 4 AM should be acceptable.

[pyx]

The case could be so close that it comes down to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. If her successor is confirmed before the ruling is announced, her vote will not count.

FUD !
Better pick a LEFTIST or you'll be sorry.

according to the LEFTISTS at the AP.

[WV Mountain Mama]

If it would have only taken five minutes to get the warrant, they should have gotten it right after the guy said NO!!

[miele man]

"The two words on my mind are 'spousal abuse,'" Justice Stephen Breyer said.

I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but how does Breyer come up with "spousal abuse"? The wife has already moved out and just came back for some other personal belongings. How is "spousal abuse" germane to this case even if hubby had been "abusing" his wife? Looks like Breyer is looking to "foreign" law principles to decide this case and not on the merits of the case (insofar as I know).