[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-442536-105":59,"doc-detail-442536-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","supreme-court-prohibits-warrantless-search-if-any-co-resident-objects","Supreme Court Prohibits Warrantless Search If Any Co-Resident Objects","","Supreme Court limits warrantless entry and searches of residences under the Fourth Amendment when a physically present co-occupant objects. The ruling restricts drug-related searches in a marital residence and also bars landlords or hotel managers from authorizing such searches without consent from present objecting occupants. The Court explains the decision’s relationship to earlier Matlock and Olson cases, outlines the reasoning about privacy expectations, and identifies the consequences for police officers seeking entry over objections.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/supreme-court-prohibits-warrantless-search-if-any-co-resident-objects/442536/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/supreme-court-prohibits-warrantless-search-if-any-co-resident-objects/442536.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"eBook King","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-03","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the Supreme Court say about warrantless searches when a co-resident objects?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Warrantless entry and search are unreasonable and invalid as to the present objecting co-occupant.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Does a ruling based on consent from one person still allow a warrantless search when another occupant is present?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"No. The decision distinguishes situations with only one occupant present versus two or more occupants, and gives dispositive weight to the present occupant’s contrary indication.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the Court describe the relationship between this decision and earlier cases like Matlock and Olson?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The Court states the ruling does not conflict with Matlock and rests on principles from the 1990 Olson decision regarding overnight guests and legitimate expectations of privacy.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},442536,1790791550,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962088006270,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","March 24,2006Volume 40,Number 11  \nIN THIS ISSUE  \nSupreme Court Upholds LegalityOf Anticipatory Warrants…  …22nd Circuit Sets Proportionate FineFor Hostile Work Environment...27th Circuit Supports Terry StopIn High Crime Area ……………38th Circuit Allows WarrantlessSearch Of Motel Occupant …………310th Circuit Decides Officer HasNo Claim For Equipment Failure.4Ohio Strikes Down Key ProvisionsOf Truth-In-Sentencing Law.……4  \nNATIONAL  \nStudy Makes 8 RecommendationsFor Improving Court Securit...…4Iowa Reports 57%Decline InChildren Exposed To Met………4South Carolina Cites DomesticViolence As No.1 Crime…………5South DakotaOpens State-Of-ArtSecurity Command Center………5Connecticut Boosts State Police ToNearly Full Authorization……………6Illinois Turns To Motorcycles ToReplace Aging Cruiser Fle………6  \nACROSS THE STATES  \nAriz.:Troopers Guard Border…6  \nHawaii:Police Recruiting Starts….6  \nI.:Panel Okays Marijuana Bill.7  \nNev.:Court Review Begin.………7  \nN.M.:DNA Tests For Arrestees...7  \nOkla.:Sex Offender Bill Gains.7  \nPa.:Meth Bill Gets Backing……7  \nS.D.:State Joins U.S.Database.....7  \nCrime Control  \nA comprehensive and independent news summary for the Law Enforcement Professlonal  \n# Supreme Court Prohibits WarrantlessSearch If Any Co-Resident Objects\n\nThe 4th Amendment bars police from conducting a warrantless searchof a residence if any occupant presentobjects,the Supreme Court decided.  \nThe justices voted to restrictsearches of a marital residence fordrugs in the case of a couple in whichthe estranged wife agreed and thehusband withheld consent  \n\"In the circumstances here at is-sue,a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permitentry renders warrantless entry andsearch unreasonable and invalid as tohim,\"the justices said.  \nThe 5-3 majority opinion alsoheld that the landlord of rented prem-ises or the manager of a hotel wouldalso be prohibited from granting per-mission for a warrantless search.  \nThe high court said the rulingdoes not conflict with its 1974Matlock decision.  \nIn Matlock,the Supreme Courtaffirmed that a warrantless entry andsearch by law enforcement officersdoes not violate the 4th Amendment'ssearches and seizures\"if the officershave obtained the consent of a thirdparty who possesses common author-ity over the premises.  \nThe justices also said the new de-cision rests on the 1990 Olson ruling,  \nin which the justices held that over-night houseguests had a legitimateexpectation of privacy.  \nChief Justice John Roberts andJustices Antonin Scalia and ClarenceThomas dissented.Justice SamuelAlito did not participate in the ruling.  \n\"A co-tenant who has an interestin bringing criminal activity to lightor in deflecting suspicion from him-self can,e.g.,tell the police what heknows,for use before a magistrate ingetting a warrant,\"the majority said.  \n“This case,which recognizes lim-its on evidentiary searches,has nobearing on the capacity of the police,at the invitation of one tenant,to en-ter a dwelling over another tenant'sobjection in order to protect a residentfrom domestic violence.\"  \nThe majority opinion expressedthe view that the decision clarified thedifference between a situation inwhich only one occupant of a resi-dence is present and when there aretwo or more occupants present.  \n“So long as there is no evidencethat the police have removed the po-tentially objecting tenant from the en-trance specifically to avoid a possibleobjection,there is practical value inthe simple clarity of complementaryrules,one recognizing the co-tenant'spermission when no fellow occupant  \nPage 2  \nis on hand,the other according dispo-sitive weight to the fellow occupant'sexpressed contrary indication,\"saidthe court.  \nIn this case,Scott Randolph andhis wife Janet had separated.After afew months,the wife returned and adomestic dispute ensued.The wifetelephoned police.  \nOn arrival,the wife said her hus-band was a cocaine user and led po-lice to a straw with cocaine residue.The husband was absent when policearrived,but objected to th","cbCairx0ZJ3KN0Nh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairx0ZJ3KN0Nh","pdf",2884478,"English","# Supreme Court Prohibits Warrantless Search If Any Co-Resident Objects\n## Supreme Court Backs Anticipatory Warrants","[{\"question\":\"What does the Supreme Court say about warrantless searches when a co-resident objects?\",\"answer\":\"Warrantless entry and search are unreasonable and invalid as to the present objecting co-occupant.\"},{\"question\":\"Does a ruling based on consent from one person still allow a warrantless search when another occupant is present?\",\"answer\":\"No. The decision distinguishes situations with only one occupant present versus two or more occupants, and gives dispositive weight to the present occupant’s contrary indication.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the Court describe the relationship between this decision and earlier cases like Matlock and Olson?\",\"answer\":\"The Court states the ruling does not conflict with Matlock and rests on principles from the 1990 Olson decision regarding overnight guests and legitimate expectations of privacy.\"}]","Supreme Court Prohibits Warrantless Search If Any Co-Resident Objects | PDF",1790700680,23]