Document: 547 U.S. 103 (2006) GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH No. 04-1067. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 8, 2005. Decided March 22, 2006. *105 Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General Georgia, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on briefs were Thurbert E. Baker, General, and Mary Beth Westmoreland, Deputy General. Solicitor Dreeben States as amicus curiae urging reversal. him brief Clement, Acting Richter, Sri Srinivasan, Deborah Watson. Thomas C. Goldstein respondent. Amy Howe, Kevin Russell, Donald F. Samuel, Pamela S. Karlan.[*] *106 JUSTICE SOUTER delivered opinion Court. The Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless entry search premises when police obtain voluntary consent an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, authority over area in common with co-occupant later objects use evidence so obtained. Illinois Rodriguez, 497 177 (1990); Matlock, 415 164 (1974). question here whether such evidentiary seizure likewise lawful permission one other, seeks suppress evidence, present at scene expressly refuses consent. We hold that, circumstances issue, physically co-occupant's stated refusal permit prevails, rendering unreasonable invalid him. I Respondent Scott Randolph his wife, Janet, separated late May 2001, she left marital residence Americus, went stay parents Canada, taking their son some belongings. In July, returned Americus house child, though record does not reveal object was reconciliation retrieval remaining possessions. *107 On morning July 6, complained that after domestic dispute husband took away, officers reached told them cocaine user whose habit had caused financial troubles. She mentioned problems said only recently several weeks parents. Shortly arrived, explained he removed child neighbor's out concern wife might take boy country again; denied use, countered it fact abused drugs alcohol. One officers, Sergeant Murray, Janet reclaim they renewed complaints about husband's drug but also volunteered there "`items evidence'" house. Brief Petitioner 3. Murray asked house, which unequivocally refused. sergeant turned search, readily gave. led officer upstairs bedroom identified Scott's, where noticed section drinking straw powdery residue suspected cocaine. He then get bag from car call district attorney's office, instructed stop apply warrant. When withdrew station, along Randolphs. After getting warrant, seized further basis indicted possession moved products unauthorized by wife's express refusal. trial court *108 motion, ruling search. Appeals Georgia reversed, 264 Ga. App. 396, 590 S.E.2d 834 (2003), itself sustained State Court, principally ground "the conduct given face another search," 278 614, 604 835, 836 (2004). acknowledged this Court's holding 164, possesses effects against absent, nonconsenting person whom shared," id., 170, found Matlock distinguishable just because "absent" colloquy relied make stressed been "faced physical presence joint occupants, consenting other objecting." Ga., 615, 2d, 837. It held individual chooses live assumes risk no greater than "`an inability control access during [his] absence,'" ibid. (quoting 3 W. LaFave, Search Seizure § 8.3(d), p. 731 (3d ed. 1996) (hereinafter LaFave)), contemplate objection request commonly shared premises, if made, will be overlooked. granted certiorari resolve split may give law enforcement effective co-tenant states search.[1] 544 973 (2005). now affirm. *109 II To rule ordinarily prohibiting person's per se, Payton New York, 445 573, 586 (1980); Coolidge Hampshire, 403 443, 454-455 (1971), "jealously carefully drawn" exception, Jones States, 357 493, 499 (1958), validity searches possessing authority, U. S., 181. That householder sought, Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 222 (1973), fellow shares property, suspect supra, exception extends even entries reasonably, erroneously, believe possess occupant, 186. None our consent-to-search cases, however, has presented second refusing moving obtained.[2] significance turns underpinnings rule, recognized since Matlock. A defendant case arrested yard lived Mrs. Graff *110 relatives, detained squad parked nearby. door, admitted consented U.S., 166. resolving defendant's taken we shared." Id., 170. Consistent prior understanding rights are limited cf. Katz 389 347, 352-353 (1967), third party's "common authority" synonymous technical property interest: "The justifies third-party rest upon its attendant historical legal refinements, rests rather mutual persons generally having most purposes, reasonable recognize any co-inhabitants right inspection own others have assumed number searched." 171, n. 7 (citations omitted). See Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 740 (1969) ("[I]n allowing [his cousin share duffel bag] leaving [the suspect] must cousin] would allow someone else look inside"). counts under thus broader accorded law, see 181-182 (consent sufficient appears who, fact, interest searched), although limits, too, reflect specialized tenancy arrangements apparent police, Chapman 365 *111 610 (1961) (landlord could tenant's home). constant element assessing reasonableness then, great widely social expectations, naturally enough influenced controlled rules. Cf. Rakas Illinois, 439 128, 144, 12 (1978) (an expectation privacy "a source outside Amendment, either reference concepts real personal understandings permitted society"). accordingly holds solitary co-inhabitant sometimes stands proposition significant part function exercise ways affect each other's interests. B Matlock's example apparent. comes door dwelling baby hip, did, shows belongs there, standing alone tell visitor occupies place others, probably lives subject assumption tenants usually quarters. They understand admit visitors, consequence guest obnoxious nevertheless absence another. As put it, understood include "assumption risk," entitled rely, group living together exceptional arrangement without agreement all, chance eccentric scheme too remote expect visitors investigate particular *112 household's rules before accepting invitation come in. So, what usual placed burden eliminate possibility atypical arrangements, reason doubt regular place. easy imagine different facts which, known, sensibly suspected. identifies himself, say, landlord hotel manager calls up customary guests current occupant. supra (landlord); Stoner California, 376 483 (1964) (hotel manager). tenant ordinary course rented formal informal let into dwelling, Chapman, 617, customarily anyone employees room, Stoner, 489; Jeffers, 342 48, 51 (1951) staff room purposes cleaning maintenance, police). these circumstances, neither state-law rights, nor contractual points parties occupying premises. And searching through bureau drawers, instances clearly belonging lack perceived consent; eight well considered power crossing threshold caller, pollster salesman, admitted," 4 LaFave 8.4(c), 207 (4th 2004), position authorize rummage parents' bedroom. *113 C Although dealt directly reliance immediate challenge another, step toward issue earlier dealing entered warrant benefit requirement. Minnesota Olson, 495 91 (1990), overnight houseguests legitimate temporary quarters "it unlikely host] wants meet guest," 99. If courtesy deference foundation houseguest, presumably should follow inhabitant claim least much, stronger claim. begin with, fair say caller confidence occupant's sufficiently good enter stood saying, "stay out." Without very reason, sensible go inside those conditions. Fear safety issuing invitation, inside, thought justify entry, justification risk, threats life limb, disputed invitation.[3] visitor's reticence show timidity realization people disagree quarters, *114 resolution accommodation, appeals authority. Unless fall within hierarchy, like household parent barracks housing military personnel grades, societal superior inferior, reflected standard formulation "[e]ach cotenant . enjoy entire sole owner, same cotenants." R. Powell, Powell Real Property 50.03[1], 50-14 (M. Wolf gen. 2005). want among disagreeing law's response disagreements cannot resolved. ask better side conflict; simply provides co-tenant, unreasonable, decree partitioning (when relationship co-ownership) terminating relationship. See, e. g., 2 H. Tiffany, §§ 468, 473, 474, pp. 297, 307-309 1939 2006 Cum. Supp.). while partition answer disagreement rental tenants, situation resembles co-ownership lacking occupy together. sum, prevail wishes color curtains invitations outsiders. D Since wishing open party practice objecting more, gives entering all. Accordingly, balancing *115 competing governmental interests entailed bar searches, Camara Municipal City County San Francisco, 387 523, 536-537 cooperative adds nothing government's counter force individual's security intrusion "centuries-old principle respect home," Wilson Layne, 526 603, (1999), beyond home special protection center private people," Carter, 525 83, 99 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring). have, whole national history ancient adage man's castle [to point t]he poorest man cottage bid defiance all forces Crown," Miller 301, 307 (1958) (internal quotation marks omitted).[4] Disputed match central value State's countervailing claims do add outweigh it.[5] Yes, citizen bringing criminal *116 activity light, Coolidge, 488 ("[I]t policy underlying Amendmen[t] discourage citizens aiding utmost ability apprehension criminals"). co-tenant's self-interest siding deflect suspicion raised sharing criminal, 162, 72 ("The being convicted knows tried remove means insignificant"); Schneckloth, 243 (evidence obtained pursuant "may insure wholly innocent wrongly charged offense"). But society can often relying theory ignores inhabitant's acting initiative able deliver 487-489 (suspect's retrieved guns couple's police), knows, magistrate warrant.[6] *117 information instead accords general partiality "police action [as against] seizures one," Ventresca, 380 102, 107 (1965); informed deliberate determinations magistrates empowered warrants permissible Constitution preferred hurried officers," Lefkowitz, 285 452, 464 (1932). Nor established undermined principal dissent's shields spousal abusers violent co-tenants refuse victims help, post, 138 (opinion Roberts, J.) dissent). dissent exaggerates violence home; abuse serious problem Dept. Justice, National Institute P. Tjaden & N. Thoennes, Full Report Prevalence, Incidence, Consequences Violence Against Women 25-26 (2000) (noting 20 million women 6 men will, lifetimes, intimate-partner abuse); Health Human Services, Centers Disease Control Prevention, Center Injury Prevention Control, Costs Intimate Partner 19 (2003) (finding nearly 5.3 victimizations, result close injuries 1,300 deaths, occur year); Bureau Justice Statistics, Crime Data Brief, Rennison, Violence, 1993-2001 (Feb. 2003) 2001 made 20% crime women); Becker, Politics Women's *118 Wrongs Bill "Rights": Bicentennial Perspective, 59 Chi. L. Rev. 453, 507-508 (1992) feel insecurity homes partners). bearing capacity protect victims. argument failure distinguish two issues: committing trespass, evidence. No raised, be, resident violence; long threat exists, silly suggest commit tort entering, complaining opportunity collect belongings safely, determine (or violence) occurred soon will) occur, however much spouse objected. (And lawfully seize plain view supported consequent probable cause, Texas Brown, 460 730, 737-739 (1983) (plurality opinion).) Thus, order provide easily answered yes. 161 ("[E]ven quite equal place, individuals apartment basis, nonetheless exist giving recognition other. [W]here victimized emergency nature validate despite objections" omitted; omission original)). undoubted *119 victim, case, consent.[7] cases cited support improbable recognizing limits merely compromise fearful danger kept behind closed abusive Donlin, 982 F.2d 31, 32 (CA1 1992) (victimized already arrived and, intents protective custody officers); Hendrix, 595 883, 885-886 (CADC 1979) (per curiam) (even threatened did allowable exigent grounds); People Sanders, 904 P.2d 1311, 1313-1315 (Colo. 1995) (en banc) gave away time visit; alternatively, existed satisfy exception); Brandon State, 778 221, 223-224 (Alaska 1989) visit); Davis, 290 F.3d 1239, 1241 (CA10 2002) (immediate harm extinguished "order[ed]" *120 red herring aside, know, course, alternatives always inside. disclose information, factual enough, showing exigency fast action. custom reflection argues placing higher delving consent, requiring clear government resident's objection. therefore justified resident.[8] E There loose ends, first explanation constitutional sufficiency search: "rests ." 7. "in right," how "own right" eliminated objection? footnote quoted statement taken: "right" refers enduring enforceable ownership *121 usage substantial specific circumstances. divested mere is, rather, powerful purport question, (which quote): described nonconsenting" resident. end Rodriguez today's decision. object, far away; actually asleep apartment, roused knock co-tenant. undercut holding, drawing fine line; potential objects, suffice whereas objector, nearby invited colloquy, loses out. This line draw, think formalism justified. So potentially entrance sake avoiding possible objection, practical simple clarity complementary rules, hand, according dispositive weight contrary indication *122 expresses it. For unjustifiably impractical require affirmative steps confirm actual apparent, needlessly limit respond ostensibly opportunities field required find received. ready efforts invite difference many every turn test adequacy police's consult objector. Better accept distinguishing impose requirement, consuming courtroom, systemic justification. pragmatic decision simplicity moreover, suspects consent,[9] albeit imprudently, undercuts try locate denial foregone conclusion. III invites straightforward application him, regardless *123 Randolph's clear, grounds independent argue need portion (which, seized, used attempting establish issued later). upheld rubric owing destroy judgment affirmed. ordered. ALITO consideration case. STEVENS, concurring. study purpose ascertaining original provisions legislative intent lawmakers enact statutes. both situations uncovered relevant necessarily dispositive. illustrates why dedicated adherent approach interpretation places primary relevance changes society. At 1604 settled agent "house" "castle" unless authorized Semayne's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. 194 (K. B.). Every *124 rightprotected centuries 1791to entry. enter, waiving valuable right. sure waiver voluntary, sound practicea Justices necessary [1]for advise right.[2] relates content advice met woman apparently owners property. 18th century, adopted, appropriate today. Given then-prevailing dramatic differences between lesser matter. Whether master house" objected, control. Thus "original understanding" govern outcome History, matter *125 male female partners. Reed Reed, 404 71 (1971). world properly partners independently assert waive. Assuming spouses competent, override deny castle. observations, join opinion. BREYER, forced us choose bright-line (1) (2) never first. because, Chief Justice's out, permitting serve important needs (for example, cases), diminishes privacy. insist Rather, single set capture ever-changing complexity human life. consequently uses terms "unreasonable seizures." continuously emphasized "[r]easonableness measured examining totality circumstances." Ohio Robinette, 519 33, 39 (1996); Wardlow, 528 119, 136 (Stevens, concurring dissenting part); Florida Bostick, 501 429, (1991); Michigan Chesternut, 486 567, 572-573 (1988); Royer, 491, 506 opinion). following: solely *126 known seeking destruction. Thornton 541 620-622 (2004); Skinner Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 602, 623 (1989); Schmerber 384 757, 770-771 (1966). And, reveals, secured sought enter. McArthur, 531 326 (2001). "totality circumstances" abandoning Amendment's traditional hostility stress change significantly, result. objector "and object[ing]." Ante, 121. Moreover, ongoing circumstance critical difference. Consider, abuse. ante, 117-118. "Family disturbance constitute largest category received departments year." Mederer Gelles, Compassion Control: Intervention Cases Wife Abuse, J. Interpersonal 25 (Mar. (emphasis deleted); also, Office California Criminal Statistics Center, Domestic Related Calls Assistance, 1987-2003, Year, http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/misc/dvsr/tabs/ 8703.pdf (as visited Mar. 1, 2006, available Clerk file) (providing data average 207,848 related Cessato, Defenders Washington Post, Aug. 25, 2002, B8 ("In District [of Columbia], report almost half roughly 39,000 2000 involved violence"); Zorza, Battering: High *127 Law, Clearinghouse Review 383, 385 (Special Issue 1994) ("One-third spent responding calls"). effectively confronted victim consents officer's request, consent) victim's fear abuser. indicate availability form willingness speak, otherwise exist. context, immediate, later, following direct so, THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S suggestion, 139, adversely practices. case-specific understandings, ROBERTS, SCALIA joins, dissenting. creates surmising typical encounters entirely situation. majority fashions implement high office privacy, random happenstance protecting, happens front napping watching television next room. cost affording great, demonstrated recurring seek *128 correct mapped precedents: protects papers, papers government. illegal plans incriminating documents interpose government, time, decides grant present. Co-occupants "assumed [a] Just walk upstairs, down, home, too. "[w]hat [a person] assured consents; `unreasonable.'" 183. "`reasonable'" 184; 219 (1973). Proof "is proof defendant," possessed *129 premises." 171. Today's rule: constitutionally impermissible, objected based describes "widely expectations" "when accommodation." 111, 113-114. fundamental predicate majority's analysis gets nowhere: Does accede wishes, way around? accommodation leads stalemate gentlemen insisting Nevertheless, confident assumingconfident incorporate Constitutionthat arrives residence, greeted disagreeable shouting "`stay out,'" away. 113. observes "no conditions," ibid., concludes inviting "authority" co-occupant, 114. seems equally accurate saybased conclusion co-occupantthat wish admitted. wide variety differing imagined, rise expectations. relative friend feuding roommates roommate. invitee *130 appeared affects expectations: came celebrate birthday, traveled distance roommate's pertinent: Invitees react differently areas roommate expected absent himself. Altering numbers three co-occupants encourage dissenter. scenarios limitless, slight variations pattern yield vastly expectations Such shifting promising particularly basic assumptionthat encountering fleebeyond hunch typically act looked decide questions latter inquiries, subjective [is] prepared `reasonable.'" 361 (1967) (Harlan, concurring); 91, 95-96, 100 (1990) (extending inquiry). concept applied arising issues strong longtime confidant listen conversations, profound shock *131 betrayal, monitoring confidant's Amendment. White, 401 745, 752 (1971) suggests "constant reasonableness," 111 (citing (1978)), case; precedents cites refer "legitimate privacy," 143, added; internal Whatever protect, containers, Our not, turn, anotherincluding policebut sharing. friends locker keeps contraband trust space, "already frustrated" lockermate. Jacobsen, 466 109, 117 (1984). computer pirated software drive, assume inform saving computer. subtle conventions shape private, labelscourtesy, manners, custom, protocol, honor thieves. Constitution, once shared, documents, remain discretion confidant. *132 understanding. conversation eavesdropping, statements admissible trial. 752. privacy: "Inescapably, contemplating activities realize companions reporting police. [I]f doubts, allays them, risks has, his." Ibid. well. (1969), "was jointly" cousins. 740. both: "[I]n defendant] inside." supra: "It reveals authorities, occurs prohibit information. Once frustration occurs, nonprivate information: `This repeatedly obtaining revealed conveyed Government betrayed.'" *133 Miller, 425 435, 443 (1976)). applies compromised space. runs four clothes wearing previous night handed items accord produced inspection, incumbent avert eyes." 489. Even relationships, observable actions possessions around us. jury observed bore witness, invoke testimonial privilege. Trammel 40, 53 (1980). Trammel, noted former testifying wrongdoing say-so "goes making `every castle,' permits convert `a den thieves.'" 51-52 Bentham, Rationale Judicial Evidence 340 (1827)). evaluating space manner evaluated foregoing proceeded lines considering searches. car, bank robbery. Police certainly *134 consulted sat handcuffed outside. Miss Fischer offered facilitate arrest sleeping boyfriend admitting 179, undoubtedly Rodriguez's Yet exercised control, certain co-occupants. thread decisions upholding conducted "assume[s] risk" derived "joint purposes" concluded makes "reasonable right." sense, comparable keep Fifth informationor housewith instance.[1] *135 extent ensure due free locked suitcase bed. Mr. distinction motion suppress, differentiated describing dominion." area," control" By emphasizing objector's noting "be [one's] absence," resurrect agency suggested early cases. 483, (stating clerk guest's waived *136 "by word deed, agent"); 610, 616-617 (1961). belied Rodriguezboth defendants consentand rested delegation choice agent, 7; 181; McAlpine, 919 1461, 1464, 1990) ("[A]gency [was] reasoning Matlock"). acknowledges family areas, entails risk. co-occupantsjust governmentmight Karo, 468 705, 726 (1984) (O'Connor, judgment) "relatively identical, overlapping container, conversation. Here surrender party"). follows: "[A] resident." 120. such. protected co-owner arrive, backyard gardening, listening music *137 earphones hears door. confirms bears relation What luck arrive. Usually development jurisprudence arbitrary lines, signal rethought. Acevedo, 500 565, 574, 580 (1991). embrace outset sponsors appreciate fine, formalistic lines. Rather draw lines pretend decreed themthe more adopt acknowledging yielding historically yielded cooperate flows concerning logically grounded scope obscure repeats times renders "as him." 106, 120, 122. implies to" else, normal discovered legitimately premises; Randolph, *138 Randolph. differentiation focused discovering (and view), crime, puzzling. 118-119. rejected motivations questions, Whren 517 806, 812-813 (1996), reason: signs possession. While something random, consequences severe. arises disassociate themselves activity. 884 (wife "`to sawed-off shotgun house'"); Cosme, 48 N.Y. 2d 286, 288-289, 293, 397 N.E.2d 1319, 1320, 1323 (1979) (woman gun closet); Botsch, 364 542, (CA2 1966). Under overridden co-occupant. happen, concerned activity, clicks shut? pause briefly inflict retribution first, little attend short order. depart police; remember presence, allowed prevent doing *139 Perhaps operation situations, context arises. 179; 31 1992); supra; 1311 banc); 221 1989). accommodating co-tenants, requests assistance disagreement. inside" 113, admission, 114, [has] all," obvious: dessert coffee; precise knocking assist Randolphsone felt forbids abuser behavior prompted objects.[2] *140 concerns, dismisses rely 116-117, 6. strange alternative justifications arise unreasonable. addition, suffices occupants disputes. 1240-1241 justifying responded abuse, heard noise arrival, town, seemingly unharmed resisted door). effect spouse's avoid again alters defend veto spouse. exigency, new "good reason" coupled "lawfully 118. "consent plus treatise, entries. 2004)). defending concedes *141 spins framework analyzing "violence occur." key factor finds inadequate deal law. imports "social expectations," previously reasonable, considers motive asking refrained questions. requirement situations. Considering protecting asks pain altering doctrine, precious (if any) gain day, analytic become clearer, treated treats opinions Rodriguezas "loose end" tied up. former. 125 Breyer, J.). concurrence advises, *142 life," joins becomes opinion, "[g]iven holding," 127. establishes, terms, occupant." 122-123 added). "understandin[g]" "rule" "case-specific" holding. 127 complete guidance field, lower courts. * reminds us, tones, castle, 115, keep, engaged constable gate. Then co-owner's objects. constitutionalize acknowledge secret confidential document, sharefor reasonswith respectfully dissent. SCALIA, few words Stevens' concurrence. *143 me Stevens married woman's answers depended owned depend latter-day alteration produce outcome itself. STEVENS' attempted critique originalism confuses import background sources meaning, referred. From date ratification until 20th violation common-law trespass. Kyllo 533 27, 31-32 (2001); 581, 583 (1991) (Scalia, judgment). connection, license 1 Restatement Torts 167, Comment b (1934); Williams Howard, 110 82, 96 S.E. 251 (1918); Fennemore Armstrong, 29 Del. 35, A. 204 (Super. Ct. 1915). depended, "historical refinements" developed, longer power. referred alter meaning: capable authorizing *144 surprising unchanging bodies change. provides, instance, "private property" shall public compensation"; define rights. consistently existence determined `existing stem state law.'" Phillips Legal Foundation, 524 156, Board Regents Colleges Roth, 408 564, 577 (1972)). true Fourteenth Due Process Clause's "property." Castle Rock Gonzales, 545 748, 756 changeable presents originalist. supposes meaning expand contract indeed true, therefore, 1791 troublesome originalist well-established compensate takings founding. event, panegyric modern "[a]ssuming castle." 125. hand conflict equals. Now STEVENS winner contest. followed developments opposite conclusion: *145 partners," obstruct wishes. Men "equal" regime, sexes view, cannot. Finally, grave deserves celebration forward march women's equality. patterns violence, encounter urges simultaneously demands out? decision, insofar contest concerned, homeswhich curiously precisely disapprovingly presumes 1791. THOMAS, "[i]t responsible citizenship whatever aid enforcement." Miranda Arizona, 436, 477-478 principle, where, here, accused voluntarily accused. 486-490. Because squarely controls address permissibly instant respondent using *146 quantity Upon statements. However, recitation demonstrates, 107, occurred. Instead, Brett located, showed bedroom, saw "piece cut straw" dresser. Corrected Tr. Motion Suppression Hearing Case 2001R-699 Sumter Cty., Oct. 3, 2002), 8-9. closer examination, white straw, ingesting 8. collected 9. Murray's Randolphs' shown respondent's precedents, intended restraint sovereign limitation agencies." Burdeau McDowell, 256 465, 475 (1921) 487. Applying investigation 488-498. demonstrates governs interrogated murder, sent speak wife. 485. During questioning *147 guns. 486. replied affirmative, retrieve weapons operating help exonerate husband. accompanied guns, clothing murder. Before suppressed product unlawful "`instrument,'" complying "`demand'" them. initiative, "there existing articles evidence." cooperation transform agent; Amendments criminals." 488. "acting normally properly" "logical coercive," "avert eyes" inspection.[1]Id., 488-489. *148 indistinguishable compelling evidence.[2] could, accord, implicating Murray. Indeed, concede much. 116 ., warrant"). Drawing production inconsistent unduly formalistic.[3] appropriately provided *149 reverse Georgia. NOTES [*] amici reversal filed Colorado et al. John Suthers, Colorado, Krause, Interim Rebecca Adams, Attorneys respective Troy King Alabama, M. Jane Brady Delaware, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lisa Madigan Phill Kline Kansas, Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Michael Cox Michigan, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Mike McGrath Montana, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Corbett, Pennsylvania, Lawrence Long South Shurtleff Utah, William Sorrell Vermont, Rob McKenna Washington, Patrick Crank Wyoming. Jeffrey Lamken Harris Association Defense Lawyers affirmance. [1] All Courts remains Morning, 64 531, 533-536 (CA9 1995); 33 885 curiam); Sumlin, 567 684, 687-688 (CA6 1977). Of courts addressed Love 355 Ark. 334, 342, S.W.3d 676, 680 (2003); Laramie Hysong, 808 199, 203-205 (Wyo. 1991); Leach, 113 Wash. 735, 744, 782 1035, 1040 (1989) (requiring co-occupants). [2] Mindful multiplicity vary describe residential co-occupancies. mean, similarly varied. [3] Mincey 437 385, 393 (acknowledging "threatening limb" indicating "`strictly circumscribed exigencies initiation'"). [4] over. equates contemporaneous secret, 142 J.), emphasis false equation devalue importance attitude underlies including 131. [5] generalized expedient cannot, Mincey, ("[T]he totally sacrificed name maximum law"); 481 inconvenience somehow `weighed' efficiency"). [6] Sometimes, exchange render irrelevant creating part; incapacitated destroying disposable 326, 331-332 (2001) (denying trailer warrant), fairly spot preserve (1966) (warrantless delay destruction evidence" omitted)). Additional Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 294, 298 (hot pursuit); Chimel 395 (protecting Tyler, 436 (imminent building); Johnson 333 10, 15 (1948) (likelihood imminently flee). [7] battered afraid candidly, seem Hence, crediting built hoping victims, distort little, any, constructive investigations. [8] pass constitutionality 137. one. [9] 8.1, so-called frequently investigating conduct" (footnote omitted)); Strauss, Reconstructing Consent, 92 Crim. 211, 214 (2001-2002) ("Although figures detailing notand beavailable, type tens thousands, hundreds year" 284-285 (1973) (Marshall, dissenting) (pointing hard comprehend "how knowledge arguing "[i]f chosen forgo exclude follows meaningful knew police"). surely preferable expression desire construed command question. 275-276 (Douglas, "`[u]nder read "May I" courteous demand backed law'" Bustamonte 448 699, 701 1971))). comparison "false equation," discerns place." 4. reduce this: room; bit overwrought characterize signaling over." (1974), drew faults today, 7, "deliberate intent" ascribes 108-109, 1. mischaracterizes assuming "privacy police." point, waives 132-136. concern, asserts "merely [to] searches." 119. premise "open door" 114; 106 ("[A] him" added)); saying `stay out'" 114 entering" added)). transforms begun altogether, afford vulnerable gather leave, 118, putting "`third consent'" 171 conception Coolidge's scene. 487 ("[W]e consider petitioner's `waive' seizures"). Walter 447 649, 660-661, (1980) (White, ("Similarly, turning government"). disagreed inquiry performed determining involvement instrument Pervaz, 118 5-6 1997) (summarizing approaches various Circuits). similarity avoids unlike perform inconsequential, ultimately so; viewed apprehending husband, implicate

Category: 0