Question: Did the court cases Miranda v. Arizona and Georgia v. Randolph happen 10 years apart?

Context articles: DWI court
Withrow v. Williams
Georgia v. Randolph
Rhode Island v. Innis
United States v. Matlock
Brewer v. Williams
Miranda v. Arizona
Georgia v. South Carolina (1990)
Georgia v. Brailsford (1793)
Stephen Halbrook

The abbreviation "DWI" stands for driving while intoxicated, closely related to the "DUI" abbreviation, standing for driving under the influence.
 Driving While Intoxicated court cases are extremely serious violations and are thus handled in a strict manner.
 A controversy that comes along with trying "DWI" court cases is whether or not the court will rule the incident as a "crime of violence".
 If a court rules the incident as a "crime of violence", it then becomes classified as an "aggravated" felony.
 If an offender has been sentenced with an aggravated felony, they are now subjected to immigration and possible deportation, depending upon their citizenship.
 It is clear that "DWI" court cases have the extremely important responsibility of classifying whether a case is a "crime of violence", in order to determine the severity of the offenders sentence.
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Fifth Amendment "Miranda v. Arizona" arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court.
 The Court rejected the state's argument that "Stone v. Powell", a case holding the opposite in the context of Fourth Amendment claims on habeas review, applied in Williams' case.
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
 The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant consent rule" established in "United States v. Matlock", 415 U.S. 164 (1974), which permitted one resident to consent in absence of the co-occupant.
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of "Miranda" warnings. Under "Miranda v. Arizona", police are forbidden from interrogating a suspect once he has asserted his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
 In "Innis," the court held that interrogation is not just direct questioning but also its "functional equivalent"; namely, "any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response."
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched.
 The ruling of the court established the "co-occupant consent rule," which was later explained by "Illinois v. Rodriguez", 497 U.S. 177 (1990) and distinguished later by "Georgia v. Randolph" (2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant, and "Fernandez v. California" (2014), where the court held when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment.
 Under "Miranda v. Arizona", evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his Miranda rights is inadmissible.
 Here, however, the defendant had been indicted in court, and thus his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had automatically attached.
 At issue was whether a voluntary admission of incriminating facts in response to police statements constituted a waiver of this right to counsel.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court.
 In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (1990) , is one of a long series of U.S. Supreme Court cases determining the borders of the state of Georgia.
 In this case, the Court decided the exact border within the Savannah River and whether islands should be a part of Georgia or South Carolina.
 It also decided the seaward border.
Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 415 (1793) , was a United States Supreme Court case continuing the case of "Georgia v. Brailsford" (1792).
 Here, the court held that "upon a motion to dissolve that injunction, this court held that, if the state of Georgia had the title in the debt, (upon which no opinion was then expressed,) she had an adequate remedy at law by action upon the bond; but, in order that the money might be kept for the party to whom it belonged, ordered the injunction to be continued till the next term, and, if Georgia should not then have instituted her action at common law, to be dissolved."
Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
 He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).
 He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".
 He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".
 In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.
 More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.
 He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").
 He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.
 Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.
 The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment.