Georgia vs Scott Fitz Randolph

I was going to write a super detailed post about Chief Justice Roberts' dissension but the American Family Ass site wore me out. So you will just get a summary

This was to settle if the police come to your door and one person says you can come in and the other person says you can't has consent been given to search. The Court decided that consent wasn't given.

1) Touches on the issue and uses the example of a couple where an abused spouse gives consent but the abuser doesn't and hence dissents. What CJ Roberts fails to remember is that if the police have "reasonable suspicion" that the spouse is being abused then they don't need consent.

2) The next reason that he gives is that if the individual shares info and that isn't protected. For example you have some illegal plans and your spouse turn those over the govt. Those plans aren't protected and hence you don't have same right to refuse your house being searched. This is true, but not relevant. This implies that there isn't an understanding of implicit trust in this situation. Which is flawed there is a concept of privileged information true this isn't the exact same case but your talks with your doctors, lawyers and spouse are all considered privileged.

3) He then goes into a tangent about if your spouse could invite a social guest and the level of consent for that. What CJ Roberts fails to see is that a social guest and the government are two completely different entities.

Now I'm worn out and tired hopefully some else will do a better analysis. Hopefully people will get out an vote in 2006 and 2008 so I won't have post about these crazy thing and post more about fun things like Mac OS X hacks and bitch about people on the Metro and the Safeway near my house.

here is another take