My argument

I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Georgia v. Randolph. Scott’s privacy was invaded when police search his home without his consent. I’m glad the Fourth Amendment is there to protect the people from mistakes that could potentially get you in jail.

Dissent

The court ruled 5-3 in favor for Scott Randolph, his wife Janet Randolph had given up Scott’s right to privacy in his home when she offered police to search the home for drug evidence accusing. The Fourth Amendment protects privacy. If an individual shares information, papers, or places with another, he assumes the risk that the other person will in turn share access to that information or those papers or places with the government. And just as an individual who has shared illegal plans or incriminating documents with another cannot interpose an objection when that other person turns the information over to the government, just because the individual happens to be present at the time, so too someone who shares a place with another cannot interpose an objection when that person decides to grant access to the police, simply because the objecting individual happens to be present.
“ A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it. Co-occupants have "assumed the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched." United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, 171, n. 7 (1974). Just as Mrs. Randolph could walk upstairs, come down, and turn her husband's cocaine straw over to the police, she can consent to police entry and search of what is, after all, her home, too.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1067#dissent1

Rule of Law

The court was unable to use the evidence found in Randolph’s home against him since the search was not performed with consent from both parties in the home. Previous Supreme court cases were compared to Georgia v. Randolph during the argument where Randolph was found innocent by the court reversing their decision.

“The Fourth Amendment rule ordinarily prohibiting the warrantless entry of a person’s house as unreasonable per se, Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980); Coo­lidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 454–455 (1971), one “jealously and carefully drawn” exception, Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499 (1958), recognizes the validity of searches with the voluntary consent of an individual pos­sessing authority, Rodriguez, 497 U. S., at 181. That person might be the householder against whom evidence is sought, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 41 U. S. 218, 222 (1973), or a fellow occupant who shares common authority over prop­erty, when the suspect is absent, Matlock, supra, at 170, and the exception for consent extends even to entries and searches with the permission of a co-occupant whom the police reasonably, but erroneously, believe to possess shared authority as an occupant, Rodriguez, supra, at 186. None of our co-occupant consent-to-search cases, however, has pre­sented the further fact of a second occupant physically present and refusing permission to search, and later moving to suppress evidence so obtained.2” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1067#dissent1

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

Reasoning of the court- The Supreme Court Case of Illinois v. Rodriguez was another Supreme Court case used for reasoning the Georgia v. Randolph case. “In Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177 (1990), this Court stated that "[w]hat [a person] is assured by the Fourth Amendment ... is not that no government search of his house will occur unless he consents; but that no such search will occur that is 'unreasonable.' " Id., at 183. One element that can make a warrantless government search of a home " 'reasonable' " is voluntary consent. Id., at 184; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 219 (1973). Proof of voluntary consent "is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant," but the government "may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises." Matlock, supra, at 171. Today's opinion creates an exception to this otherwise clear rule: A third-party consent search is unreasonable, and therefore constitutionally impermissible, if the co-occupant against whom evidence is obtained was present and objected to the entry and search.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1067#dissent1
The court found the search invalid and the evidence was suppressed because there was no search warrant to search the home and Scott Randolph Objected to the search.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The evidence found in Scott Randolph’s house was suppressed. The evidence was found during a search where Scott Randolph had denied permission for the officers to search his home. The Court ruled that the police should not have searched the home based on the invitation of only on party of the household, and when the other party is present.

“The court’s decision ruled in Randolph’s favor. “In a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. Justice David Souter, in the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction. Souter wrote, "it is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant's invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, 'stay out.' Without some very good reason, no sensible person would go inside under those conditions." A police search in such circumstances, Souter wrote, would therefore not meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.”




http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1067.pdf

Illict Trade

Trafficking fake products seems to be a big black market industry. The results that we have seen in the movie show us that billions of dollars worth of fake products are being produced and sold across the world every day. In one aspect it drives down the value of the products that are being legitimately produced. On the other hand it is bringing in an underground economy where people who would be living without jobs are making money and able to survive.

One trade on the black market is fake prescription pills made in Columbia. Some of the pills that are being manufactured are being made with poison and products that could potentially kill the user. I think this problem is a lot bigger than other people selling fake hand bags. The pills are being made with homemade products and utensils. This is a problem. Not only are people buying pills they think will help them but they are being killed.

Making fake handbags is a problem because the designers who have patent the design of the print and the bags are losing a lot of money because consumers are going out and buying counterfeit bags on the street. It seems to be giving so many people jobs.
There are many products such as toothpaste, brakes, weapons, people being held as modern slaves all included in this market.

There are two sides of this problem the people that are benefiting and the people that are losing. If nobody is actually getting hurt I don’t see a real crime in making illegal products such as knockoff bags and products. It is such a big market there will never be away to end the trade as much as governments want to “try” the governments are usually the one who have hand in the whole plan. Corruption is everywhere and it will always be.

Issue of the case

Georgia v. Randolph, is a case where the "Respondent’s estranged wife gave police permission to search the marital residence for items of drug use after respondent, who was also present, had unequivocally refused to give consent." http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1067.pdf Janet Scott Randolph’s wife had let the police search their marital home without the consent of Scott Randolph and without a warrant to look for drug evidence she had accused her husband of having inside the home, “she not only renewed her complaints about her husband's drug use, but also volunteered that there were items of drug evidence in the house.” http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/editedCases/geovran.htmlin "Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house, which he unequivocally refused.” The sergeant did find drug evidence that Janet claimed was her husband’s. The sergeant called the district attorney’s office for a search warrant and later found more evidence in the home. Both of the Randolph’s were taking to the police station where Scott Randolph was later indicted.

The issue of the police searching the Randolph’s home without a warrant was found to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment."The Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless entry and search of premises when police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, authority over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained." http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/editedCases/geovran.html
The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect an individual through the use of a warrant; police are required to have a warrant in order to arrest you or perform a search.

While on trial Scott Randolph had filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was found in his home during the warrantless search. The trial court had denied Randolph’s motion. “The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence should have been suppressed. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Randolph was present when the police came to his home, the police were required by the Fourth Amendment to heed his objection to the search.” http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2005/geovran Scott Randolph was able to have the evidence found in his home suppressed so that he did not spend more time in jail.