HIGH COURT DEBATES HOME SEARCHES

WASHINGTON - The love lost between Scott and Janet Randolph worked to
the advantage of the police in the summer of 2001, when authorities
investigating a domestic dispute between the two asked to search the
couple's Georgia home.

Scott Randolph said no. His wife said yes, and police went ahead with
her consent. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed whether the
subsequent search -- in which Janet Randolph led them to drugs that
resulted in her husband's arrest -- was unconstitutional.

The case is the latest in a long line of opportunities for the court
to refine the scope of permissible searches under the Fourth
Amendment. But the question involved -- How much privacy can anyone
expect in a home they share with someone else? -- inspired an animated
debate among the justices.

Even Clarence Thomas, usually silent during oral arguments, jumped
into the fray. Thomas not only asked a question, but also engaged in a
lively back-and-forth with a lawyer, saying that rules of criminal
procedure shouldn't prevent Janet Randolph from leading police to
evidence of a crime.

"That would be unreasonable," Thomas said.

Scott Randolph's position is straightforward: A man's home is his
castle, and if he wants to deny entry, even the police ought to
respect that. Even a spouse -- a partner with equal say over the home
- -- shouldn't trump an individual's right to say "no" when the police
come knocking without a warrant.

Randolph concedes that the search would have been fine if he hadn't
been there and police had gotten his wife's consent. And he concedes
that if he'd been at home asleep or away from the door when police
asked to enter, his wife legally could have granted them permission to
search.

But Randolph has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regard to
his own wishes about who comes into his home, lawyer Thomas Goldstein
told the justices. Police shouldn't be able to breach that privacy
over his express wishes.

"We aren't saying the police should go away" under those
circumstances, Goldstein said, noting that they probably could have
obtained a warrant to search the house. "We just want a balance."

The Georgia Supreme Court sided with Randolph, throwing out the drug
evidence that was recovered during the search.

Randolph's position seemed to draw support from several justices
during the argument, especially Sandra Day O'Connor, who emphasized
that the court doesn't decide search cases by acknowledging shared
property rights, but by determining what's socially acceptable.

"Is it the norm to let a stranger in against the express wishes of a
spouse?" she asked Georgia Deputy Attorney General Paula Smith. "We
have to look at social policy and the rights of privacy."

O'Connor, who's in her waning days on the court, may not stay long
enough to vote on the case.

Nominee Alito and Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito expressed "great respect" for the
precedent established by the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision
but didn't commit to upholding it, senators said Tuesday as Alito
began a second week courting their support.

Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, both used
the word "respect" when describing the 55-year-old federal appellate
judge's discussions with them on the 1973 ruling that established
abortion rights.

Abortion will be a key topic at the conservative judge's confirmation
hearing, set for Jan. 9.