Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Family Law Blogs -> California Divorce and Family Law
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Family Law
: California Divorce and Family LawSupreme Court rules police search is not allowed when only one spouse consents to search
The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both of the partners present agree to let them in.
The 5-to-3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.
The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had said police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.
Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives or boyfriends and girlfriends keep police nationwide busy; in Washington, for example, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved allegations of domestic violence.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since joining the court, said the ruling's ''cost" would be ''great."
Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court had previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday's decision.
Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant surrenders a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts said. ''The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.
The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived, she told them where they could find cocaine.
For more about the ruling, go to the Boston Globe.
Full post as published by California Divorce and Family Law on March 23, 2006 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Strip Search Class Action Settled for $900,000
Strip Search Class Action Settled for $900,000
Strip-Search Lawsuit Settled for $1.1 Million
Strip-Search Lawsuit Settled for $1.1 Million
Canadian Government
seeks new law enabling them to search your laptop
Two Kentucky Counties
settle strip search class action lawsuits
Baltimore Strip Search Class Action
Judge Gives Go-ahead
Illegal Strip Search
Lawsuit Reaches $2.1 Million Settlement

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Police Search Powers
U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Case On Police Informant Searches
High Court Upholds Post-Arrest Searches That Violate State Law
Cert. granted in Arizona v. Gant, a search incident case








