Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

OR explains Randolph and the removed objector

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Oregon explains Randolph, Matlock, and Rodriguez in detail where the objector was removed from the scene. His objection continues. State v. Caster, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 731 (July 7, 2010): Randolph is best viewed not as an “exception” to co-occupant consent cases like Matlock and Rodriguez, but rather as an illustration of the ordinary rule that warrantless searches are unauthorized. That is, Randolph is properly understood as a case in which the Court was unable to find, as it had in Matlock and Rodriguez, an exception to the warrant requirement. In determining whether the circumstances merited a departure from the ordinary rule, the Court explained that the “constant element” in assessing whether a warrantless entry is reasonable based on the co-occupant's consent is “the great significance given to widely shared social expectations...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on July 12, 2010 (boomark / email).