Georgia v. Randolph
Citation
547 U.S. 103 (2006). Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts
Janet Randolph called police to her home during a domestic dispute. She consented to a search of the shared residence for evidence of drug use. Her husband Scott Randolph, who was physically present, expressly refused consent. Police searched over his objection and found cocaine paraphernalia. Scott moved to suppress, arguing his refusal controlled.
Issue
When co-occupants of a shared home disagree about consenting to a warrantless police search — one consenting, the other objecting — whose decision controls?
Holding
The Court held that a warrantless consent search over the express objection of a physically present co-occupant is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The objecting co-occupant’s refusal overrides the consenting co-occupant’s permission.
Rule / Doctrine
A co-occupant’s consent to search shared premises is ineffective when another co-occupant who is physically present explicitly objects. The critical limitation is physical presence: if the objecting occupant is removed (even by lawful arrest) before consent is given, the consent is valid. Contrast Illinois v. Rodriguez (absent co-occupant with apparent authority can consent) and Fernandez v. California (objecting occupant lawfully removed, later consent valid).
Significance
Randolph drew a bright line protecting individual autonomy within shared spaces when both parties are present. It underscores that the Fourth Amendment’s protections are personal and cannot be overridden by a co-occupant’s unilateral decision when the rights-holder is present and objecting. The physically-present requirement has generated significant subsequent litigation.