Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
Georgia v. Randolph (2006): When One Occupant Says “No” — Police Can’t Enter
If a physically present co-tenant refuses consent, officers cannot rely on another occupant’s permission to search a home.
Background
Police responded to a marital dispute. Randolph’s wife consented to a search of the home for drugs, but Randolph — standing right there — explicitly refused. Officers searched anyway and found cocaine. Randolph challenged the search as unconstitutional.
Questions Presented
- Can police enter a shared home with consent from one occupant when another occupant is present and clearly objects?
Majority Opinion — Justice David Souter
Holding: When a physically present resident expressly refuses consent, the police cannot rely on another occupant’s consent to justify entry and search.
Souter emphasized that consent authority is rooted in “mutual use of property” and respectful social norms. You cannot invite someone into a shared residence over your co-occupant’s clear objection — and neither can the police. The Court limited earlier rulings allowing searches based on a co-tenant’s consent when the objector is absent.
This case is crucial in Texas drug, assault, and probation investigations involving roommates, spouses, or dating partners. Montgomery County defense attorneys scrutinize whether the client was physically present and objected to entry. If so, Randolph bars the search absent a warrant or separate exception. Any evidence seized must be suppressed — including derivative warrants and statements gained after the illegal entry.
If officers removed the refusing occupant (e.g., arrest or “detain outside”) and then obtained consent, defense counsel will argue that police engineered the removal to sidestep Randolph, requiring suppression under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.