High Court Agrees To consider When Police May search Home

By HOPE YENAssociated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider whether police may search a home when one occupant consents but another does not. Justices will review the case of Scott Fitz Randolph of Georgia, who was charged with cocaine possession in 2001 following a domestic disturbance call by his wife. When police arrived, she complained that Randolph had taken away their son and that he had been using cocaine. A few minutes later, Randolph returned home and told police the son was at a neighbor’s home. Officers then asked to search the couple’s home, but Randolph objected. Mrs. Randolph, however, consented and led police to a drug stash inside the couple’s bedroom. At issue is whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Georgia Supreme Court said yes, reasoning that police must defer to an objecting occupant’s position when two people have equal use and control of the home. Other lower courts, however, are divided on the issue. Many hold that a consent from one occupant is sufficient, since cohabitants assume the risk when living together that “one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.” The case is Georgia v. Randolph, 04-1067. In other action, the court said it will consider whether police went too far in questioning when officers taunted a murder suspect with the death penalty after he invoked his right to an attorney. A Maryland state court dismissed the case of Leeander J. Blake, saying his Miranda rights were violated. Blake and Terrence Tolbert were charged with the murder of Straughan Lee Griffin, who was shot in the head Sept. 19, 2002 as he was unloading groceries from his car in a downtown neighborhood near the state capitol in Annapolis. He was apparently run over with his sport utility vehicle as the attackers sped away. Blake, who was 17 at the time, initially refused to talk to police when he was arrested and taken to jail, wearing only a tank top and boxer shorts. When a police officer delivered a copy of the charging documents listing death as a possible penalty, another officer told Blake, “I bet you want to talk now, huh?” After the officer made the comment, a detective said police could not talk to Blake. About half an hour later, Blake told police he did want to talk to them and made incriminating statements about the murder without consulting a lawyer. The Maryland state court ruled last year the statements couldn’t be used at trial because Blake had invoked his constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer. The comment, “I bet you want to talk now, huh,” was a functional equivalent of interrogation, the appeals court said. The case is Maryland v. Blake, 04-373.