← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1535 · law

Question: The police were called to a domestic dispute. The wife told police that her husband was abusive and that he was a heavy cocaine user. The husband was present and denied the allegation. Police asked for permission to search the premises for drugs, which was consented to by the wife. The husband, however, refused to consent to the search. The police went ahead anyway and found drugs in the husband's belongings. After being arrested on drug charges, the husband filed a motion for suppression of the evidence based on lack of consent. What should be the likely decision of the trial court?

  1. The search was valid because the husband's denial of the allegations was not credible.
  2. The search was invalid because the wife was not authorized to give consent to search her husband's personal belongings.
  3. The search was invalid because the police did not have a search warrant, which is required regardless of consent.
  4. The search was invalid and the evidence must be suppressed because the co-occupant of the premises was present and specifically refused to give consent to the search.
  5. The search was valid because the cases say that one occupant's consent to the search overrules the other occupant's refusal to consent.
  6. The search was valid because the wife's statement established probable cause that a crime was being committed €“ this created exigent circumstances for the search.
  7. The search was valid because the wife's consent was sufficient to search the common areas of the home.
  8. The search was invalid because the consent to search was not voluntary, as it was given out of fear of domestic violence.
  9. The search was valid because the drugs were in plain view when the police entered the premises.
  10. The search was invalid because, even though consent was given, the police must first attempt to get a search warrant to enter a home.

Our answer: D. The search was invalid and the evidence must be suppressed because the co-occupant of the premises was present and specifically refused to give consent to the search. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer

How it was answered

Stored method, replayed by code (kind: formula)

card: formula · card sha256 772a22b5c0812c1a…

Current source

Wikipedia, Georgia v. Randolph (547 U.S. 103 (2006))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph

“We hold that, in the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.”

Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

retrieved 2026-09-18T00:33:48.705Z

page text sha256 73bb0602cca338fc… · content sha256 7f3d026afebcbfae…

addendum formula_qid1535.formula_ADDENDUM_source_rs20260918T003348Z · sha256 918b9a0d7abfc44b… · replaces the version below, addendum sha256 d2dae18b1e62aafd…

Earlier version (superseded)

No public source has been found for this card yet (2 places checked internally).

addendum formula_qid1535.formula_ADDENDUM_source · sha256 d2dae18b1e62aafd…

If you have a Citable Source to dispute or challenge this, ADD IT so we can correct the answer by appending, never deleting. — hello@lianabanyan.com