Under Georgia v. Randolph, if a physically present co-occupant refuses to consent to entry, is the warrantless entry unreasonable and invalid as to that occupant?

Under Georgia v. Randolph, if a physically present co-occupant refuses to consent to entry, is the warrantless entry unreasonable and invalid as to that occupant?

• A. Yes, for that co-occupant
• B. No, it remains valid for all occupants
• C. It depends on whether there is probable cause
• D. The entire entry requires a search warrant

Answer: (A)

Georgia v. Randolph teaches that when a dwelling is shared by two or more people and one is physically present and objects to a police entry, the other occupant’s consent cannot justify a warrantless entry. The objecting co-occupant’s privacy interests trump the consent of the present occupant, so the entry is not reasonable as to the objecting individual. To lawfully search or enter, police would need a warrant or valid consent from the objecting occupant, or there must be exigent circumstances that justify acting without consent.

Georgia v. Randolph teaches that when a dwelling is shared by two or more people and one is physically present and objects to a police entry, the other occupant’s consent cannot justify a warrantless entry. The objecting co-occupant’s privacy interests trump the consent of the present occupant, so the entry is not reasonable as to the objecting individual. To lawfully search or enter, police would need a warrant or valid consent from the objecting occupant, or there must be exigent circumstances that justify acting without consent.