US Supreme Court Decision in Georgia vs Randolph - Essay Example

Name of Student: Name of Instructor: Name of Subject: Date Topic: Analysis of US Supreme Court decision in the case of Georgia V. Randolph 1. Introduction: This paper seeks to do the following tasks: Task 1 - Analyze and discuss the controversy that divided the US Supreme Court Justices in the case of Georgia v. Randolph, particularly the schism (which focuses on the “rules-versus-standards” theme between Justices Souter and Roberts and the little scuffle between Justices Souter and Roberts (which focuses on the important issue of how to go about interpreting the Constitution). Task 2- After the analysis and discussion, there is a need to identify three major themes, concepts, or conceptual dichotomies (rules-versus-standards are an example of a conceptual dichotomy) within the opinion. In discussing those themes, concepts, or dichotomies a determination of the role they play in the opinion will be explained, situating that role within the broader field of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. In addition, a determination will also be made of what roles do any of these themes, concepts, or conceptual dichotomies play in the law of confessions and in substantive criminal law. There is also to determine the relationship of consent in this case with consent and coercion in rape cases. Task 3 -In carrying out the task specified in guideline under task 2, the paper would situate the Randolph opinion within the broad landscape of criminal justice bringing to bear the themes, concepts, and dichotomies that are found working within the Randolph opinion with our knowledge and insight of criminal law generally. We will also consider why these broad ideas arise in criminal jurisprudence or attempt to determine what anxieties in our legal culture produce these ideas and doctrines? Task 4. As we engage in this high-level discussion of Randolph and the ideas that the decision gestures at, we will also discuss what we think of how Justices Souter, Breyer, and Roberts went about their mission in advancing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We will try to identify who is most persuasive of the justices and the reason why their approaches to constitutional analysis are similar or different to other cases they have decided before. In accomplishing the said objective, it is proper to cite or quote the facts of the case since said case facts will be considered as premises of conclusions made by the justices. With case facts, we will evaluate the whether there is validity of their conclusions. 2. Analysis: 2.0 Facts of the case: This is a case of spouses, where the woman has complained with the police about a domestic dispute with her husband and told later the police of her husband’s use of drugs. She therefore consented to the police searching evidence in their house but before the evidence of drug possession was taken the husband was equivocally refusing the search done. When prosecuted for illegal possession of drugs, he moved for suppression of the evidence. (For the complete facts of the case, please refer to Appendix A) 2.1. Task 1 2.1.0 What are the controversies between Justices Souter and Robert? What were the arguments by Justice Souter supporting the majority opinion and what are the counter-arguments of Justice Robert? 2.1.1 Arguments of Justice Souter citing case of Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 Having affirmed the Supreme Court of Georgia, there is reason to include the reasons of the court in declaring the unreasonableness of the search conducted in the case at bar, The Court through Justice Souter cited Georgia’ Court holding in Matlock,…that “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, non-consenting person with whom that authority is shared,..."It also ‘found Matlock distinguishable just because Scott Randolph was not “absent” from the colloquy on which the police relied for consent to make the search. It stressed that the officers in Matlock had not been “faced with the physical presence of joint occupants, with one consenting to the search and the other objecting.” (Citations omitted) (Georgia V. Randolph) 2.1.2 What are the counterarguments of Justices Robert using the case of Matlock? Chief Justice Robert’s main proposition is: “If an individual shares information, papers, or places with another, he assumes the risk that the other person will in turn share access to that information or those papers or places with the government and that once an individual has shared illegal plans or in-criminating documents with another cannot interpose an objection when that other person turns the information over to the government”. He argued further that a warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it. He used the case of Matlock arguing for common area saying: “Just as Mrs. Randolph could walk upstairs, come down, and turn her husband’s cocaine straw over to the police, she can consent to police entry and search of what is, after all, her home, too.” (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) In short, Justice Souter is saying that the search is unreasonable search if one of the occupants is objecting but not when said co-occupant is absent, while Justice Roberts argues that it is reasonable and he considers the consent of one of occupant as enough valid consent citing also Matlock. (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.1.3 Argument of Souter using cases Rodriguez and Matlock Justice Souter further said that the Fourth Amendment rule ordinarily prohibits the warrantless entry of a person’s house as unreasonable …, one “jealously and carefully drawn” exception, recognizes the validity of searches with the voluntary consent of an individual possessing authority, Rodriguez, 497 U. S., at 181. That person might be the householder against whom evidence is sought,…, or a fellow occupant who shares common authority over property, when the suspect is absent, Matlock, supra, at 170, and the exception for consent extends even to entries and searches with the permission of a co-occupant whom the police reasonably, but erroneously, believe to possess shared authority as an occupant, Rodriguez, supra, at 186. None of our co-occupant consent-to-search cases, however, has presented the further fact of a second occupant physically present and refusing permission to search, and later moving to suppress evidence so obtained. (Certain citations omitted) (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.1.4 Counterargument of Robert citing cases of Rodriguez and Matlock Justice Roberts cited the cases of Rodriguez and Matlock at 171, saying: “One element that can make a warrantless government search of a home “‘reasonable’ ” is voluntary consent... Proof of voluntary consent “is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant,” but the government “may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises.” (Citations omitted) (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) Justice Souter makes the present case different from the case of Rodriguez and Matlock because the present of co-occupant objecting and moving to suppress evidence, which is not present in the said two cases; Roberts is arguing that the third party may possessed the authority over other sufficient relationship to the premises. Further, Souter said: “But this case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims. The dissent’s argument rests on the failure to distinguish two different issues: when the police may enter without committing a trespass, and when the police may enter to search for evidence. No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected.” (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) Majority is saying that purpose is to seek evidence while Robert looks at it as a way of addressing a domestic violence. Hence .they could never meet because they have different framework. The first assumes seeking evidence; the second one assumes assistance with a domestic dispute. But the majority has cited circumstances about seeking for evidence. 2.1.5 The controversy between Justices Steven v. Scalia Steven’s argument dwells on the premise that interpreting the US constitution requires the understanding of the historical basis of the Fourth Amendment. He therefore delved on the influence of the change in the property law as changing the interpretation of the constitution. He posited that had the case happened in the 18th century, when the Fourth Amendment was adopted, the advice would have been quite different from what is appropriate today. He said: “Given the then-prevailing dramatic differences between the property rights of the husband and the far lesser rights of the wife, only the consent of the husband would matter. Whether “the master of the house” consented or objected, his decision would control….” (Citations omitted). Justice Steven then said that in today’s world the only advice that an officer could properly give should make it clear that each of the partners has a constitutional right that he or she may independently assert or waive and that 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. (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.1.6 Justice Scalia’s counterargument to Justice Steven: Justice Scalia charges that Steven’s attempted critique of originalism confuses the original import of the Fourth Amendment. While admitting property law developed and that individuals who previously could not authorize a search might become able to do so, and those who once could grant such consent might no longer have that power, he posited however that “changes in the law of property to which the Fourth Amendment referred would not alter the Amendment’s meaning: that anyone capable of authorizing a search by a private party could consent to a warrantless search by the police.” He further said: “No one supposes that the meaning of the Constitution changes as States expand and contract property rights.” (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.2. Task 2. The three major themes, concepts or conceptual dichotomies include: rules versus standards, seeking evidence or domestic violence, and Constitution construction on using or not using changes in property law. 2.2.1 Rules versus standards The concept of rules vs. standards is one of the essences of the arguments of Justice Souter and Robert. The majority through Justice Souter wants to treat the case of Georgia V. Randolph as case- specific decision different from the case of Matlock and Rodriquez because of the objection of the one of the co-occupants. The standard that the majority wants to express is to make the present case of Scott Randolph distinguishable just because Scott Randolph was not “absent” from the colloquy on which the police relied for consent to make the search. The majority thorough Justice Souter argues: ‘an individual who chooses to live with another assumes a risk no greater than ‘an inability to control access to the premises during [his] absence,’ … and does not contemplate that his objection to a request to search commonly shared premises, if made, will be overlooked. (Citations omitted). On the other hand, Justice Robert wants to establish a rule that “If an individual shares information, papers, or places with another, he assumes the risk that the other person will in turn share access to that information or those papers or places with the government. And just as an individual who has shared illegal plans or in-criminating documents with another cannot interpose an objection when that other person turns the information over to the government, just because the individual happens to be present at the time, so too someone who shares a place with another cannot interpose an objection when that person decides to grant access to the police, simply because the objecting individual happens to be present.” (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.2.2 Seeking evidence or domestic violence The majority through Justice Souter sees the factual setting as that of seeking evidence and not case of domestic violence. As found in Task I this dichotomy was the cause of the differences in the conclusion between Robert and Souter. They constitute the premises of analysis. The proof that majority was arguing under the premise that the police was seeking evidence is very evident on the following statement of Justice Souter in the opinion of the court: ““But this case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims. The dissent’s argument rests on the failure to distinguish two different issues: when the police may enter without committing a trespass, and when the police may enter to search for evidence. No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected.” (Citations omitted) (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.2.3 Constitution Construction on using or not using changes in property law Justice Steven is arguing on the premise that the US constitution should be interpreted on the premise of the historical development of the property law. He cited that in the 18th century, when the Fourth Amendment was adopted, the advice would have been quite different from what is appropriate today. He continued saying: ‘Given the then-prevailing dramatic differences between the property rights of the husband and the far lesser rights of the wife, only the consent of the husband would matter.’ ….. He concluded”: “original understanding” was to govern the outcome of this case; the search was clearly invalid because the husband did not consent. History, however, is not dispositive because it is now clear, as a matter of constitutional law, that the male and the female are equal partners.” (Certain citations) (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) Justice while agreeing that there have been changes in property law and the corresponding changes in the persons who could authorized a search said: “But changes in the law of property to which the Fourth Amendment referred would not alter the Amendment’s meaning: that anyone capable of authorizing a search by a private party could consent to a warrantless search by the police.” Moreover, Justice Scalia, seems to deny the implied connotation of the Steven’s statement that dissent is arguing on the premise that changes in property law will change in the interpretation of the Constitution when he said: ‘No one supposes that the meaning of the Constitution changes as States expand and contract property rights.’ (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.2.4 Roles played in law of confessions A confession may be defined as an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case of the truth of the offense charged, or some essential parts thereof. (Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 1, Section 821.). The law on confessions falls under the rule of evidence while the dichotomies or concepts are products of the mind following the rules of logic. Remember that these concepts could arise any discussion since they are based on premises. Had both the majority and majority proceeded from the same premises dichotomies would not be there. The main issue in the case is the admissibility of evidence, hence it admissibility is a function of different premises on the basis of different appreciation of facts, then the same could be also arise in the application of the law on confessions. (Georgia V. Randolph) (Paraphrasing made) 2.2.5 Roles played in substantive law In substantive criminal law, the rule on exclusion of evidence is relevant matter. No matter how strong the case may be if evidence are inadmissible because it now because it now become a ‘fruit of poisonous tree’ i.e., having obtained the evidence illegally because of the objection of one of the spouse, criminal law may not successfully bring the accused to conviction. The Fourth Amendment is constitutional issue and substantive criminal law may work independently of the US constitution because of the Supremacy of the Constitution over status be it criminal or law on confession. 2.2.6 Roles played in relation to consent and coercion in rape cases The consent in this case in relation to consent and coercion in rape cases are different. In the crime of rape, the victim is the only who must show her resistance or lack of consent. Hence, even if the other spouse agrees, there is still rape because as an element of the crime of the rape. In fact if the other spouse will agree to the rape of her spouse, the consenting spouse could be charged criminally with the actual rapist or rapists. 2.3 Task 3 2.3.1 Relation with of concepts with criminal law in general The criminal jurisprudence concern its itself of convicting the accused or acquitting the accused on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial. The admissibility of evidence will have a strong effect on conviction or acquittal. In the case at bar, the Mr. was charged of illegal possession of drugs or cocaine which is part of the criminal law of the United States. Since he moved for the suppression of the evidence obtained citing the violation of the Fourth amendment as a ground, then he is invoking his higher right under the law, that is his constitutional right. No matter, therefore, how convincing the evidence of the police and prosecution, the fact that the evidence are in admissible would tell that there the none effectivity of the evidence gathered by the police if the evidence gathering with the requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In addition as, feared by Justice Robert and of which the majority, cannot agree on the effect of the ruling on police officers in the field. Justice Robert is arguing that police efforts would be frustrated by the objecting spouse and that domestic violence would have its toll in society, meaning, domestic violence could always be a problem if police is prevented from accessing the private houses of individuals. However, the majority of the justice disagreed pointing to the fact that the issue at hand was that of seeking evidence and therefore must comply with the constitution under the Fourth Amendment and not to solve a domestic violence as believed by justice Roberts. 2.3.2 Why these broad ideas arise in criminal jurisprudence or what anxieties in our legal culture produce these ideas and doctrines? There broad ideas arise in criminal jurisprudence because criminal jurisprudence concerns itself of bringing also to justice those who had violated the law of the land. Society wants to stop crimes including cases of domestic violence but the state must also protect the rights of its citizens under the US Constitution. It is a fact that criminal laws cannot work apart from the bigger legal systems which political law and the other statues like the law on property. The police and the prosecutorial arm of the state being part of the criminal justice system may have their hands tied on the gathering of evidence. No matter how good the policemen in their surveillance and information gathering, if the don’t handle well their evidence in court; there effort of having the evidence in their hands may be frustrated. With every failure in evidence gathering and evidence presentation is an anxiety by the police and prosecution but such fact would be a cause of celebration of the human rights groups who have a grasps of the undying principles of their rights in the Constitution. The US Court system would like to believe the principle that they would rather see a guilty men set free than seeing five innocent men being in prison. But present life’s realities produce cases of domestic violence. Could we say for example that the increase in the cases of domestic violence may have been brought about by the tendency of the state to rather uphold the right to privacy of the spouses than the right of the state to solve crimes of domestic violence? Is there enough ground to make such an inference at the least? In the case at bar, the woman changed mind after the police have gathered evidence based on earlier consent and neither was the man charged of domestic violence. The fact that the accused was charged illegal possession of drugs, point to validity of the premise or assumption by the majority of Justices of the US Supreme Court. 2.4 Task 4 In my own personal opinion, I find every one of the Justices making their opinion logically. What caused their differences in the conclusion are their different premises because of different assumptions. The majority opinion has argued well backed up with different jurisprudence. Although Chief Justice Robert appears convincing in his arguments and counter arguments, I am influenced more by the decision of the majority in favor of the exclusion of the evidence for Mr. Randolph, who has moved for the suppression of the evidence. I feel that Justice Report is making a rule that may not be applicable in the interpretation of the Constitution which the majority rule treats as a standard which is applied on case to case basis. Upholding Justice Robert of making a role would place the right of privacy inside the home similar to other places. It will depart from the famous statement that ‘man’s house is his castle’. As to their approaches to constitutional analysis similar to other cases they have decided before or do they differ, I believe that they have decided similarly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The majority in making a fine line distinction as in other cases of Matlock and Rodriguez was moved by the objecting spouse. At that very moment there was no ‘domestic violence’ as believed by Justice Robert. Justice Robert however is banking on the adoption of a rule that privacy may be lost. The majority on the other hand made a very clear distinction of the present cases with the of Matlock and Rodriguez and therefore, it ruled that it was an evidence-seeking situation not a case of domestic violence. It precisely wanted to decide differently as compared with the past because of the presence of the objecting spouse. In logic conclusion will naturally flow given the same premise; but in this case, we did not see the similarity of assumption, hence difference in conclusion. It is therefore a question of premise which have been seen in the facts of the case 3.0 Conclusion Purposes could be different as they are perceived by the justices. Their perception and appreciation of the fact would influence much on how they will decide a case. The case of policeman entering a dwelling may have different purposes: one is to solve domestic violence and the other to seek evidence. The heart of the issue which was resolved by majority is the issue of either suppressing or not suppressing the evidence and accused seemed to have properly invoked his right under the Fourth Amendment. Constitutional law may make the substantive criminal law ineffective because of inadmissibility of evidence as result of how the justices perceived the facts of the cases. But theory, tradition and experience tell us that the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution was not placed there for nothing. They serve a greater need for humanity that is the triumph of human right. In case at bar, the triumph of the right to privacy of the home takes precedence to the right of the state through the police to gather evidence. Past decisions could point to the fact that there could be waivers of that right justifying warrantless search, like the cases of Matlock and Rodriguez, but the majority decided to set a standard under which the right to privacy could be waived, that is if there is an occupant present and objecting while police is locating evidence within the castle, the right must be upheld. But as cleared by majority, the decision does not mean that they are indifferent to the resolution of domestic violence. Cases and Works Cited: 1. Georgia V. Randolph, Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Georgia, No. 04–1067, Supreme Court Of The United States, Argued November 8, 2005—Decided March 22, 2006 2. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 186 3. United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 4. Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 1, Section 821 Appendix A Complete Case Facts: Respondent Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet, separated in late May 2001, when she left the marital residence in Americus, Georgia, and went to stay with her parents in Canada, taking their son and some belongings. In July, she returned to the Americus house with the child, though the record does not reveal whether her object was reconciliation or retrieval of remaining possessions. On the morning of July 6, she complained to the police that after a domestic dispute her husband took their son away, and when officers reached the house she told them that her husband was a cocaine user whose habit had caused financial troubles. She mentioned the marital problems and said that she and their son had only recently returned after a stay of several weeks with her parents. Shortly after the police arrived, Scott Randolph returned and explained that he had removed the child to a neighbor’s house out of concern that his wife might take the boy out of the country again; he denied cocaine use, and countered that it was in fact his wife who abused drugs and alcohol. One of the officers, Sergeant Murray, went with Janet Randolph to reclaim the child, and when they returned she not only renewed her complaints about her husband’s drug use, but also volunteered that there were “‘items of drug evidence’ ” in the house. Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house, which he unequivocally refused. The sergeant turned to Janet Randolph for consent to search, which she readily gave. She led the officer upstairs to a bedroom that she identified as Scott’s, where the sergeant noticed a section of a drinking straw with a powdery residue he suspected was cocaine. He then left the house to get an evidence bag from his car and to call the district attorney’s office, which instructed him to stop the search and apply for a warrant. When Sergeant Murray returned to the house, Janet Randolph withdrew her consent. The police took the straw to the police station, along with the Randolph’s. After getting a search warrant, they returned to the house and seized further evidence of drug use, on the basis of which Scott Randolph was indicted for possession of cocaine. He moved to suppress the evidence, as products of a warrantless search of his house unauthorized by his wife’s consent over his express refusal. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Janet Randolph had common authority to consent to the search. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, …, and was itself sustained by the State Supreme Court, principally on the ground that “the consent to conduct a warrantless search of a residence given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another occupant who is physically present at the scene to permit a warrantless search. (Citations omitted) Held: The US Supreme Court affirmed the State Supreme Court of Georgia Read More