Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Georgia v. Randolph

United States Supreme Court
547 U.S. 103 (2006)


 

Facts

The police, responding to a domestic disturbance call made by his wife, arrived at Randolph’s (defendant) house. When the police arrived at the house, Randolph’s wife proceeded to tell them that Randolph used cocaine. The police asked for permission to search the home for evidence. Randolph’s wife gave consent but Randolph, who was present with his wife, refused. Based on the wife’s consent, the police proceeded to search the home despite Randolph’s objections and discovered cocaine in Randolph’s bedroom. Over Randolph’s objections, the cocaine was admitted into evidence at trial because, the court reasoned, Randolph’s wife had the authority to consent to the search. The court of appeals reversed and the state supreme court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

Concurrence (Breyer, J.)

Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)

Dissent (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


What if police returns after Defendant is arrested and no longer able to refuse to consent to the search?

Would the suspect initial refusal to consent continues even when he is no longer present at the premises because he is now arrested and in custody?
Does the police knowing that the target of the search has refused to consent need to obtain a warrant before the search?
Or they get to start fresh and go back to the house and ask the co-tenant for consent to search the premise now that the suspect is no longer present?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.