Background: On July 6th, 2001, Janet Randolph called police to her house reporting that her estranged husband Scott had absconded with their child. She stated that Scott had abused cocaine, and invited police to search the house for it. At this point Scott Randolph returned, stating that he had left the child with a neighbor, and refused to consent to a search. The police conducted a search anyway and discovered cocaine. Is it admissible, or should it be discarded as the product of an illegal search?
The Central Question: When one co-tenant chooses to allow the police to search a house, but the other co-tenant refuses, can the police conduct a legal search?
Relevant Constitutional Text: The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Majority Ruling: 5-3. Written by Justice David Souter, who is joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and John Paul Stevens. Holds that police may not search a house where a co-tenant who is present has specifically refused to allow a search. Read the abridged ruling here.
Limitations: The ruling only affects cases where (1) the co-tenant is present at the time and (2) the co-tenant specifically refuses to allow a search. If another tenant has given permission for a search, the police are under no obligation to ask the co-tenant's permission, or even to inform the co-tenant that a search is about to take place.
The First Dissent: Written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Argues that the majority ruling is inconsistent with a strict reading of the text, relies too much on random circumstances (such as whether a co-tenant happens to be in the room at the time and aware of the search), and may endanger victims of domestic violence. Read the abridged first dissent here.
The Second Dissent: Written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Argues that the Fourth Amendment restricts only the behavior of the government, not the behavior of private citizens, and that co-tenants may therefore invite police to search their own houses at will without being burdened by constitutional restrictions. Read the abridged second dissent here.
Why Alito Didn't Rule: The case was argued on November 8th, 2005, prior to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement and the appointment of her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito Jr., both events which took place on January 31st, 2006. Justice O'Connor had heard the case, but was no longer present to rule on it; Justice Alito was present to rule on the case, but had not joined the Court in time to hear it. Not having heard the case, Justice Alito was obligated to recuse himself.
