Prometheus 6

But this is nonsense. The ruling is crystal clear.

since both marriage partners "had common control and authority" over the premises, the consent of both was needed to conduct a search without a warrant.

It seems the "practical guidance" Justice Roberts wants to provide is "how do we make this stick?"

Obviously Justice Roberts' problem is with the conclusion of the case when the law is passed...the essence of legislating from the bench.

Supreme Court Limits Police Searches of Homes
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 22 — A bitterly split Supreme Court, ruling in a case that arose from a marriage gone bad, today narrowed the circumstances under which the police can enter and search a home without a warrant.

In a 5-to-3 decision, the justices sided with Scott F. Randolph of Americus, Ga., who was charged with cocaine possession in 2001 after his wife, Janet, called the police during a domestic dispute, complained that her husband was using cocaine and then led the officers to a bedroom, where there was evidence of cocaine abuse.

The issue before the justices was one that has long caused confusion in state courts: whether the police can search a home without a warrant if one occupant gives consent but another occupant, who is physically present, says "no." The majority held today that at least under some circumstances, such a search is invalid.

"Scott Randolph's refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of Janet Randolph's consent," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The result for Mr. Randolph, a lawyer, is that the cocaine-related evidence seized by the police and used to prosecute him must be thrown out, a conclusion that the Georgia Supreme Court reached earlier when it declared that since both marriage partners "had common control and authority" over the premises, the consent of both was needed to conduct a search without a warrant.

Justice Souter said a finding for Mr. Randolph — in the specific circumstances that marked this case, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067 — was compelled by Fourth Amendment principles against unreasonable searches and seizures. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the main dissenter, bitterly disagreed, as he and Justice Souter exchanged darts in writing.

Chief Justice Roberts said the result of the majority's conclusion "is a complete lack of practical guidance for the police in the field, let alone for the lower courts." Justice Antonin Scalia joined the chief justice's dissent and wrote one of his own, as did Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took no part in the case, since he joined the court after it was argued.