Just in time for my classes on search and seizure cases. Yay! The case deals with consent searches of homes, which usually are allowed under the 4th Amendment, even without a warrant. The special quirk in the "new" case, Georgia v. Randolph (here is the opinion), is that the consent was given by a woman whose husband objected to the search. The Court now held that both spouses have to consent to such a search in order for the consent exception to be used by the police.
There is an interesting exchange between Souter (who wrote the majority opinion) and CJ Roberts (who dissented, for the first time) over whether this means that the police cannot intervene in cases of domestic violence. More interesting for constitutional theory freaks is another exchange between Stevens and Scalia. Stevens points to the fact that, from the framers' point of view, only husbands could consent, which shows, according to him, that originalism is flawed. Scalia obviously has to reply to that and everybody is having fun.
If you don't want to read the whole decision, here and here are some news stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment