Search and Seizure Case:

Wednesday the Supreme Court decided Georgia v. Randloph holding that there is no "consent" exception to the Fourth Amendments's requirement of a warrant when one spouse is present and flatly refuses consent (Randolph's estranged wife granted consent, while Randolph flatly said "no.") The vote was 5-3, with Roberts Scalia anad Thomas dissenting, and Alito not participating.

Linda Greenhouse reports in Thursday's New York Times, Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court's Placid Surface. Besides this being the first of Roberts' three dissenting votes accompanied by an opinion, Greenhouse writes,

what was striking about the decision in Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, was the pointed, personal and acerbic tone in which the justices expressed their disagreement over whether the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches was violated when the police in Americus, Ga., arriving at a house to investigate a domestic dispute, accepted the wife's invitation to look for evidence of her husband's cocaine use.

some other highlights:

The majority missed the point, the chief justice said; the fact is that someone choosing to share space has also, already, chosen to share privacy.

In turn, Soutuer responded that there is a false analogy between sharing a secret, and sharing a domocile.

Finally,

Justice Souter also attacked as a "red herring" a warning by Chief Justice Roberts that the rule the court was adopting would hamper the ability of the police to protect victims of domestic violence.

Greenhouse interprets this as an attempt to gain Breyer's vote, based on questions that Breyer asked during oral argument. The reference is also interesting given a pair of cases argued on Monday, 3/20/06 whether the 6th Amendment's right to face one's accusers means states may not admit indirect testimony of spousal abuse -- can records of 911 calls and statements given to police
be used to prosecute an alleged abuser, when the spouse refuses to testify in Court?

Justice Scalia is portrayed as quite protective of the right to confront accuserrs, but the same Seattle Times article notes

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to give prosecutors and police the benefit of the doubt in both cases.

Roberts was skeptical when Davis' lawyer suggested that prosecutors, armed with powerful 911 tapes, might keep "bad" witnesses off the stand to win their cases.