Souter denounces first dissent written by Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the police cannot enter a home and seize evidence without a warrant when one occupant agreed to the search after the other occupant refused permission. By a 5-3 vote, the high court said the husband's refusal in a case from Georgia was clear, making the search unreasonable and invalid, despite his wife's approval for it. The narrowly written ruling was a defeat for the state of Georgia and for the U.S. Justice Department, which had argued that the search of a residence should be allowed when one occupant consents, even if the other occupant objects.

The court's three most conservative members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, opposed the ruling. It was the first dissent written by Roberts, who joined the court at the end of September, and Justice David Souter sharply denounced it in writing for the majority. Under the dissent's view, he wrote, "The centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

The case involved Scott Randolph, who was charged with cocaine possession. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, which had been seized by the police during a search in 2001 of the home that he shared with his wife. The wife, Janet Randolph, had called the police and asked for them to come to the couple's house in Americus, Georgia, because of a domestic dispute with her husband. The couple previously had separated. She told the officers that Randolph had been using cocaine, which was causing the couple financial and other problems. She said drugs were on the premises. An officer asked if he could check the house and Randolph, a lawyer, refused to give his consent. The officer then asked the wife, who gave her approval.

In the bedroom, the officer saw a drinking straw and suspected it had been used to ingest cocaine. The officer took the straw and some white residue to the police station for testing. A trial court upheld the search because the wife had authority along with her husband to allow the police to search their home. But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that when two people have equal use and control of the house, one occupant's consent is not valid if the other person is present and objects...