The question concerning Fourth Amendment rights arises often in criminal cases. However, there is seldom a conflict of rights attached. In the case in point, there are several issues which must be considered: in cases of domestic disturbance, who has the right to grant entrance to police; if police enter to protect one occupant, can they case an arrest the other occupant on any charges not stemming from the domestic disturbance call, can one occupant show police evidence of other crimes over the objections of the other occupant and can they then arrest the other occupant for probable cause without a warrant. In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide which rights take precedence and who has the right to allow police to search the premises. In this case, the court’s decision seems quite right, though it might not apply in any other case. The precedent that one occupant does not have more rights than the other is set, but the other facts in this case are not affected.
In the case involving Scott and Janet Randolph, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the two occupants had equal rights to allow or veto police entry to the house, because neither occupant has more rights than the other. One dissenting judge held that this ruling will have bad consequences for spousal abuse cases. However, this ruling only applied to whether or not police could charge Scott Randolph for drug charges based upon the evidence found when Janet Randolph led them to it. Therefore, it does not apply to any abuse of the other occupant, but only to the drug charges. It should not, therefore, set a precedent for whether the police can enter to protect one occupant, but only to whether they can arrest the other occupant who disallowed entrance on any charges based upon evidence subsequently discovered while trying to handle the domestic disturbance.
The fourth amendment was originally created to protect people from illegal search and seizure within their homes, based upon the premise that a person’s house is his castle and he has the right to protect the occupants and contents. However, since this case involved two occupants, both with legal rights to occupy the premises, the question arises of whose rights take precedence.
The Fourth Amendment reads: as follows:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (U.S. Constitution) (Understanding Search and Seizure Law 2008)
The decision to be made here is whether the police had probable cause to search for evidence of drug violation and whether or not they made reasonable efforts to obtain a warrant. “Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the federal statutory provisions relevant to the area define ”probable cause;” the definition is entirely a judicial construct.” This may be one reason the officers did not make more effort to obtain a warrant. (Findlaw 2008)
Now the question arises of whether the Fourth Amendment’s two clauses must be read together. The Fourth Amendment’s two clauses together mean that the only searches and seizures which are ”reasonable” are those which meet the requirements of the second clause also, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or that meet the requirements for “probable cause”.
In order to rule on this case, the justices had to first decide if one occupant can overrule the other in granting police access. Then, they had to decide if the requirements for legal search and seizure had been met. It is, essentially based upon two things: “whether the two clauses of the Fourth Amendment are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ”reasonable” searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause” , and what defines reasonable effort to obtain a warrant.
The Court has “ruled in Harris v. United States, it approved as ”reasonable” the warrantless search of a four-room apartment pursuant to the arrest of the man found there. A year later, however, a reconstituted Court majority set aside a conviction based on evidence seized by a warrantless search pursuant to an arrest and adopted the ”cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants wherever reasonably practicable.” This rule was set aside two years later by another reconstituted majority which adopted the premise that the test ”is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable.” Whether a search is reasonable, the Court said, ”must find resolution in the facts and circumstances of each case.’’ However, the Court soon returned to its emphasis upon the warrant. ” (Findlaw 2008)
There might have been question in this case concerning probable cause, since the request for a warrant might have been based solely upon the statements of an angry spouse. However, we need not deal with this, since the officers on the scene did not try to get a warrant. If the two clauses of the Fourth Amendment must be taken together then the requirement for reasonable effort to obtain a warrant was not met.
What is clear in this case is that the reason for entering the premises was to investigate a domestic disturbance, and since the evidence of drug use was not in plain sight upon entering, the officers had no right to search the premises for anything not directly related to protecting the occupant who allowed them to enter. “If contraband, paraphernalia, a weapon, or some other piece of evidence or if criminal activity is “in plain view”, an exception to consent arises under the law. That type of voluntary exposure allows the police to view the article without a search. Since a search is not needed to view something “in plain view”, then there is no violation of a person’s reasonable expectation to privacy. To put it another way, the law assumes that if the person intended that which was “in plain view” to be kept private, then he or she would not have placed it in a position where it could be easily viewed by anyone.” (Van Wagner & Wood 2008) In this case, the paraphernalia for drugs would have to have been in plain sight upon entering, since there was no reason for officers to go into other rooms to protect Janet Randolph. Roberts’ dissent statement covers this area. Had Janet Randolph simply given the evidence to police it might have been different. (Williams, Pete 2008)
This issue has many times been debated and the meaning an application of the Fourth Amendment will be a topic for Judicial review and debate possibly forever. The people’s rights to safety and security from illegal search and seizure is cherished and should be protected. In spite of this ruling by the Supreme Court and many others, each case now is still decided upon an individual basis. There are simply far too many variables. In this case, the prosecution alleged that the search was legal, because it was incident to arrest. However, it was not drug charges that police were investigating when they arrived at the house, but domestic disturbance charges. It would seem reasonable, therefore, for court to say that the arrest for drugs would not have been made except for the illegal search conducted during the investigation of a matter not related.
While drugs are certainly a big problem, in this case, the spouse was at the door and said officers could not enter. That they did so pursuant to investigation of domestic violence, they were restricted to the issue of violence and the immediate space they entered, since no search would be required to determine if Janet Randolph was safe. Had the case involved suspicion of child abuse, then welfare workers could be called and they could allow police to investigate the possibility of child abuse in nearly all the states, pursuant to the Child Endangerment Act, which give the welfare department carte blanche. As for issues concerning terrorism, the Patriot Act currently covers that ground, though it will probably eventually be struck down and something more reasonable proposed as a constitutional amendment.
The key position in the Chief Justice’s opinion noted that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, since, “The majority missed the point, the chief justice said; the fact is that someone choosing to share space has also, already, chosen to share privacy.” (Greenhouse, Linda 2008) However, it might have also been different if the couple had not been legally married or had not met the requirements for common law marriage, since one person’s name might have been on the deed, or on a lease in an apartment. In the case of cohabitation, where the couple are not married or legally sharing, there might be differences in their rights of access.
It is clear that this issue will only get more and more complicated as time goes by. In this one case, the ruling that the search and seizure was illegal is probably correct. However, as said, each case must be taken on its own merits. There are so many permutations in the law as it applies the Fourth Amendment, and most of current law is established by legal precedent, and not by legislation. Currently the major piece of legislation affecting Fourth Ammendment rights is the Patriot Act, and we are not too certain of that act’s constitutionality at this time, It has not been tested.
References
Findlaw On line, 2008, U.S. Constitution, Fourth Ammendment, Web.
Greenhouse, Linds, 2008, Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court’s Placid Surface, New York Times, Web.
Understanding Search and Seizure Law, 2008, Web.
Van Wagner & Wood, 2008, Van Wagner and Wood online, Web.
Williams, Pete, 2008, MSNBC, The Daily Nightly, Web.