## Facts

- Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet Randolph, were estranged and living in a shared marital residence in Americus, Georgia.
- After a domestic dispute, Janet called police, alleging Scott had taken their child and used cocaine; Scott denied drug use and accused Janet of substance abuse.
- Janet told officers there were “items of drug evidence” in the home.
- Police sought consent to search the residence.
- Scott, physically present at the doorway, unequivocally refused consent.
- Janet, also physically present, gave police permission to search for evidence of drug use.
- Officers entered without a warrant based on Janet’s consent and found a straw with cocaine residue in the bedroom.
- Scott was indicted for cocaine possession based on the seized evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of a shared dwelling based on one occupant’s consent when a co-occupant is physically present and expressly refuses consent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment suppressing the evidence.
- A physically present co-occupant’s express refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid as to that occupant.
- The Court distinguished prior co-occupant consent cases where the nonconsenting occupant was absent.
- The holding was limited to the situation of a contemporaneous, “disputed invitation” (one consents, one present co-occupant objects).
- The Court stated that exigent-circumstances entries (including to address domestic-violence risks) remain permissible; the case involved a search for evidence, not an emergency entry.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary consent by an occupant with common authority can justify a warrantless search of shared premises only when no physically present co-occupant objects.
- When two co-occupants are present and one expressly refuses consent, police may not reasonably enter and search for evidence based solely on the other occupant’s consent, as to the objector.
- Fourth Amendment reasonableness in consent-search cases considers commonly shared expectations about authority in jointly occupied homes, not merely formal property concepts.
- The rule does not displace consent-search authority in cases where an objecting occupant is absent, nor does it limit warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Amendment bars police from conducting a warrantless evidentiary search of a shared home over the express refusal of a physically present resident, even if another resident with common authority consents; such a search is unreasonable and invalid as to the objecting occupant.


Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)