Jeffrey Johnson is a legal writer with a focus on personal injury. He has worked on personal injury and sovereign immunity litigation in addition to experience in family, estate, and criminal law. He earned a J.D. from the University of Baltimore and has worked in legal offices and non-profits in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina. He has also earned an MFA in screenwriting from Chapman Univer...

Full Bio →

Written by

UPDATED: Aug 18, 2012

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.

Generally, law enforcement officers do not have the right to enter a house without a search warrant when the wife gives consent but the husband does not. The most pertinent case regarding this subject is a U.S. Supreme Court case, Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). In that case, a wife consented to police entering the family home without a warrant. Her husband did not. Both parties were present when police came to the home. Each made their position clear when the police arrived. The court ruled that one co-occupant’s consent to a search does not negate another co-occupant’s right to refuse consent.

Consenting to Search in Absence of Co-Occupant

What happens if the situation is different? Say the party refusing consent to search is absent when the police arrive. This occurred in an earlier U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). In Matlock, one co-occupant of a shared home consented to an entry by law enforcement officers.

The law enforcement officers conducted a search of a common area in the home. The search turned up evidence that incriminated a second co-occupant. Later, the second co-occupant faced criminal charges. He challenged his sentence. The second co-occupant said the search was illegal because he had not given consent. The court did not agree—it ruled that the search was legal.

Recent technological advances pose questions about the legality of law enforcement officer’s entry and searches. What if a co-occupant is absent when law enforcement officers arrive? Yet at the time the law enforcement officers come, the co-occupant refuses consent via a phone conversation, text, or audio or video recording. What if a co-occupant refuses consent in a language other than English, or in a manner that cannot be understood because of a speech impairment? It is not clear how the court would view such situations.

Get Legal Help Today

Find the right lawyer for your legal issue.

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption

Legal and Illegal Searches

The fight over the legality of a search is often more important than the fight over the legality of an entry. Georgia v. Randolph indicates that when one co-occupant consents but another refuses, law enforcement officers do not have the right to search a shared home. Law enforcement officers may have the right to search even if one co-occupant refuses.

A search may be legal if law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe a crime occurred or they possess a valid search warrant. Law enforcement officers may also conduct a legal search if circumstances present a exception to the warrant requirement.