JUSTICES DEBATE HOME SEARCHES

The Supreme Court considered whether police may search a home when
one resident says to come in but another objects, in an unusually
spirited debate Tuesday that drew out even the usually silent Justice
Clarence Thomas.

Justices took up a case that arose in a small Georgia town. The wife
of a local lawyer invited officers in to search their house after the
husband turned them down. The search uncovered evidence of illegal drugs.

The Supreme Court never has said whether the Constitution's ban on
unreasonable searches covers such a scenario -- when one home
occupant says enter and another says no.

Thomas, who rarely asks questions during court sessions, spoke
several times and hinted that he would back the police.

The case could be so close that it comes down to Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, who is retiring. If her successor is confirmed before the
ruling is announced, her vote will not count.

"Don't we have to look to social understanding and the right to
privacy?" O'Connor asked. "The wife says come on in, and the husband
is right there and says no."

The dispute arose in 2001 when police in Americus, Ga., were called
to a domestic dispute at the home of Scott Fitz Randolph and his wife, Janet.

The two were having marital troubles, and she had recently taken
their son to her parents' home in Canada. Scott Randolph's lawyers
said the police call came when she returned for a few days to get belongings.

Janet Randolph led officers to evidence later used to charge her
husband with cocaine possession. That charge is on hold while the
courts resolve whether the search was constitutional. Georgia's
Supreme Court was divided in ruling for Scott Randolph.

Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have
taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the
telephone for a search warrant.

Michael Dreeben, an attorney for the Bush administration, which backs
police in the case, said people should be encouraged to cooperate
with law enforcement.

Several justices seemed sympathetic to the police, raising concerns
that limits on searches would hamper domestic disturbance investigations.