"no" means no...

today, the united states supreme court voted 5-3 to uphold a georgia supreme court decision that "a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid as to him." hooray!

the case (Georgia v. Randolph) involved a warrantless search of a husband and wife's home. the cops knocked on the door, the wife answered and consented to a search, but the husband, who was also at home, objected. the question was whether the wife's consent rendered the husband's objection worthless. here's the article from the jurist website. (thanks to krista for forwarding it to me!)

i must say, i'm surprised that this court upheld the georgia decision. i'm happy, no doubt, but given the, erm, ideological tendencies of the current panel of justices, i guess i figured that there was a decent chance that the vote would go toward upholding police powers. but as we all know, i love the fourth amendment, and i'm glad to see that the supremes recognize the importance of protecting an individual's right to privacy, particularly in his own home.

the official opinion is here. i haven't read it yet, but i bet nobody's going to be surprised by the following:

majority opinion: Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer
concurrences by: Stevens, Breyer
dissents by: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas
Alito took no part in the decision.