Citation network
Georgia Vs. Randolph
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 22, 2006
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Georgia V. RandolphSearch
-
is not valid in the face of the refusal of another physically present occupant, and distinguished United States v. MatlockSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
c) This Court took a step toward addressing the issue here when it held in Minnesota v. OlsonSearch
-
J., filed dissenting opinions. Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Georgia v. RandolphSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Georgia V. RandolphSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-1067 Georgia, Petitioner V. ScottSearch
-
authority over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained. Illinois v. RodriguezSearch
-
s house as unreasonable per se , Payton v. NewSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
exception, Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Rodriguez, 497 U. S., at 181. That person might be the householder against whom evidence is sought, Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
Consistent with our prior understanding that Fourth Amendment rights are not limited by the law of property, cf. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 171, n. 7 (citations omitted). See also Frazier v. CuppSearch
-
searched), although its limits, too, reflect specialized tenancy arrangements apparent to the police, see Chapman v. UnitedSearch
-
expectations, which are naturally enough influenced by the law of property, but not controlled by its rules. Cf. Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
up no customary understanding of authority to admit guests without the consent of the current occupant. See Chapman v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. JeffersSearch
-
at premises the police entered without a warrant or the benefit of any exception to the warrant requirement. Minnesota v. OlsonSearch
-
the balancing of competing individual and governmental interests entailed by the bar to unreasonable searches, Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
Miller v. UnitedSearch
-
could seize any evidence in plain view or take further action supported by any consequent probable cause, see Texas v. BrownSearch
-
the closed door of the house simply because the abusive tenant refuses to consent to a search. See United States v. DonlinSearch
-
United States v. HendrixSearch
-
People v. SandersSearch
-
Brandon v. StateSearch
-
United States v. DavisSearch
-
this question have concluded that consent remains effective in the face of an express objection. See United States v. MorningSearch
-
United States v. DonlinSearch
-
United States v. SumlinSearch
-
state courts that have addressed the question, the majority have reached that conclusion as well. See, e.g., Love v. StateSearch
-
Laramie v. HysongSearch
-
but cf. State v. LeachSearch
-
not mean, however, to suggest that the rule to be applied to them is similarly varied. Footnote 3 Cf. Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
incapacitated from destroying easily disposable evidence during the time required to get a warrant , see Illinois v. McArthurSearch
-
may justify entry and search under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, cf. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Additional exigent circumstances might justify warrantless searches. See, e.g., Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. HaydenSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial