The defendant in the case of Georgia v. Randolph contended that both he and his wife had to agree to a consent search of their marital home, or a search would be unreasonable. In the case, the married couple had a dispute involving their marriage and minor child that got the police involved. When the police wanted to search the home for drugs, the wife consented but the husband refused. Under the circumstances, can there be a lawful consent to search when the two occupiers of the property disagree on allowing police to enter? The police obtained a warrant based on what was found when the wife invited the police to enter. Does the exclusionary rule mean that the drug evidence seized after the warrant was obtained is subject to suppression? Why or why not?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The defendant in the case of Georgia v. Randolph contended that both he and his wife had to agree to a consent search of their marital home, or a search would be unreasonable. In the case, the married couple had a dispute involving their marriage and minor child that got the police involved. When the police wanted to search the home for drugs, the wife consented but the husband refused. Under the circumstances, can there be a lawful consent to search when the two occupiers of the property disagree on allowing police to enter? The police obtained a warrant based on what was found when the wife invited the police to enter. Does the exclusionary rule mean that the drug evidence seized after the warrant was obtained is subject to suppression? Why or why not?

The Defendant in the Case of Georgia V