The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that police lacking a search warrant cannot search a suspect's home if one resident of the house says it's OK for them to enter and another says it is not. The vote was 5-3.
The case originated in Georgia. The police did not have a search warrant to search the suspect's home. His wife invited them in and the officers later found evidence of illegal drugs inside the home. The suspect himself was at the front door and told police they could not come in.
The court was sharply divided on the issue. Justice David Souter wrote the court's decision with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas filed separate dissents while Justice John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer wrote their own opinions in favor of limiting the search.
The justices were trading barbs in their decisions. Chief Justice Roberts said 'the end result is a complete lack of practical guidance for the police in the field, let alone for the lower courts.'
Meanwhile, Souter said Roberts' dissent was 'a red herring.'
Justice John Paul Stevens explained his reasoning by saying, 'assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other's constitutional right to deny entry to their castle.'
The suspect, Scott Fitz Randolph, and his wife were having marital difficulties. Randolph's wife led the police directly to the cocaine in the house. Part of the reasoning behind Roberts' dissent was that it could hamper the investigation of domestic disputes.
Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the decision as he was not yet on the court when arguments were heard.
