# You Can’t Come In My House



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

On March 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court published its decision in the case of _Georgia v. Randolph_, establishing that one resident of a home could keep police from entering, even if another resident gave permission. This new variation in search and seizure procedure promises to have significant impact on the way that police officers handle domestic violence complaints.

The case was only peripherally related to domestic violence. Janet Randolph had separated from her husband, Scott, and left their home in Americus, Georgia to go live with her parents in Canada. She took their son with her. Two months later, she returned to Georgia, and was involved in a "domestic dispute" with her husband at their home. Scott Randolph had left with their son, saying that he feared she would again leave the country with him. Janet Randolph brought the Americus Police to the house, and Scott arrived back at the residence with the child shortly after her arrival with officers. Janet Randolph told the police that her husband was a cocaine user and had "items of drug evidence" in the house. An Americus sergeant asked Scott for permission to search the home, which was refused. However, Janet Randolph gave her permission, and the officers acted on her consent to search. Janet Randolph led officers to her husband's bedroom, where they found a drinking straw with what they believed was cocaine residue. Officers took the straw for evidence and applied for a search warrant, which resulted in the recovery of additional narcotics. Scott Randolph was eventually convicted of possession of cocaine, based on this search and evidence.

Randolph appealed his conviction on the basis that he had refused to grant permission for the police to search his home, and that his wife's consent did not override his objection. The Georgia Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, and that decision was upheld by both the Georgia and United States Supreme Courts.

The case was more about narcotics than a domestic dispute, but the decision is going to be used far more frequently in regulating police conduct when investigating domestic violence incidents. A very common scenario is where a battered wife calls the police and admits them to the residence over the objections of the batterer. Police have routinely entered and made arrests based on their observations of the victim, her (and occasionally his) injuries, the appearance of the home, and the demeanor of the suspect. The effect of _Randolph_ is that police might not ever gain access to the residence to make these observations.

There will be some loopholes, depending on the circumstances. If the violence is still ongoing when the police arrive, and they can perceive this from outside, then entry can be made under the exigent circumstances exception. Once lawfully inside the residence, they can act to prevent further injury to the parties, and _possibly_ make an arrest for domestic battery, assuming probable cause exists for this. But even this scenario could be legally problematic. Once the fight is over, one could argue that the exigent circumstances no longer exist, and that the police would have to leave if one of the residents demanded it. Officers could seek and obtain an arrest warrant for the batterer, and then return to his home and enter to make the arrest, if they had probable cause to believe he was inside. However, this would be a time-consuming procedure in many jurisdictions, would force the victim to either leave the residence or risk further injury, and circumvents the "swift and sure" intent of domestic battery laws in most states. The commonly-held theory is that batterers are deterred from future violent acts when they are arrested and held to account immediately after the incident.

The problem is that the home is arguably the place protected most by the Fourth Amendment. An officer can literally invade a person's body against their will to seize evidence for a crime as minor as drunk driving, and all he needs is probable cause. But the police cannot enter a person's home without exigent circumstances, consent, or a search warrant. And now, if any person residing in that home objects to the entry, and absent those exigent circumstances or a search warrant, the police have to remain outside.

The magnitude of these problems did not go unnoticed by the members of the court. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, and particularly mentioned that this decision left the police without direction as how to act in these situations. This is certainly true, but the Supreme Court wasn't created to provide procedural manuals for the police. The decision in _Randolph_ is, arguably, constitutionally sound (because, after all, the Supreme Court is the body that determines what is constitutional and what is not). Even so, it places officers with high-school educations and a desire to keep people safe in a bad position. One might wonder what they would want officers to do if someone dear to them was at risk, and the police were unable to act.

*Web Links:* 

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. ___ (2006)
High Court Trims Police Power to Search Homes (Washington Post)








_*Tim Dees* is the editor-in-chief of Officer.com. Dees worked in law enforcement for 15 years with the City of Reno, Nevada and later with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada serving primarily as a uniformed patrol officer and sergeant. He has also served as a field training officer in DUI enforcement, as an instructor at the police academy and in-service training programs, and as a drug influence recognition expert. From 1994 to 2001, he was a criminal justice professor at colleges in Wisconsin, West Virginia, Georgia, and Oregon. _

_Dees was most recently a regional training coordinator for the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), based in Pendleton. He holds a master of science degree in criminal justice from The University of Alabama, the Certified Protection Professional credential from the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS), and is a Certified Law Enforcement Trainer with the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET)._


----------

