The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a case involving a Georgia attorney who denied police access to his house, but whose wife welcomed police in and led them to his drug stash. Scott Fitz Randolph was charged with cocaine possession, but before he went on trial, he succeeded in having the evidence suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. The Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with his position.
April 19, 2005 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
What are police supposed to do when they ask to search a house for drugs, and one occupant says yes while the other says no?
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to answer that question in a Georgia case in which Scott Fitz Randolph denied police access to his house, but his wife welcomed police in and led them to her husband’s drug hiding place. The case is Georgia v. Randolph, and will be argued in the fall.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
