PSN Card Code Generator

PSN Card Code Generator

Georgia vs.Randolph

On the morning of July 6, she complained to the police that after a domestic dispute her husband took their son away, and when officers reached the house she told them that her husband was a cocaine user whose habit had caused financial troubles. She mentioned the marital problems and said that she and their son had only recently returned after a stay of several weeks with her parents. Shortly after the police arrived, Scott Randolph returned and explained that he had removed the child to a neighbor's house out of concern that his wife might take the boy out of the country again; he denied cocaine use, and countered that it was in fact his wife who abused drugs and alcohol.

One of the officers, Sergeant Murray, went with Janet Randolph to reclaim the child, and when they returned she not only renewed her complaints about her husband's drug use, but also volunteered that there were "items of drug evidence" in the house ... Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house, which he unequivocally refused.

The sergeant turned to Janet Randolph for consent to search, which she readily gave. She led the officer upstairs to a bedroom that she identified as Scott's, where the sergeant noticed a section of a drinking straw with a powdery residue he suspected was cocaine. He then left the house to get an evidence bag from his car and to call the district attorney's office, which instructed him to stop the search and apply for a warrant. When Sergeant Murray returned to the house, Janet Randolph withdrew her consent. The police took the straw to the police station, along with the Randolphs. After getting a search warrant, they returned to the house and seized further evidence of drug use, on the basis of which Scott Randolph was indicted for possession of cocaine ...

 The husband refused to be Searched after his spouse called police to come an search the house for cocaine in possesion of scott randolph.

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.

My opinion of this ruling is a 100% for it because both co-tenats have to agree to have one of the co-tenats be searched.

I got this court case from: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/a/gavrandolph_maj.htm

Post 1: Text, Why Created, and meaning to our lives

"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 Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official. These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. 

What the four amendment means to our lives is freedom to not get your bags checked without a cop having a search warrant.

 Url I got info from http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/4th_amendment.htm