If Scott Fitz Randolph, in his career as a lawyer, ever dreamed of having a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, he could not have envisioned a day like Tuesday.
Randolph didn’t argue before the justices. Instead, the justices argued about Randolph, a disbarred Georgia lawyer, and his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The case, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, asked what should happen when a police officer knocks on the door of a home and asks to search, and the wife says “yes” but the husband says “no.”
Details here from the Fulton County Daily Report via Law.com.
If Scott Fitz Randolph, in his career as a lawyer, ever dreamed of having a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, he could not have envisioned a day like Tuesday.
Randolph didn’t argue before the justices. Instead, the justices argued about Randolph, a disbarred Georgia lawyer, and his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The case, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, asked what should happen when a police officer knocks on the door of a home and asks to search, and the wife says “yes” but the husband says “no.”
Details here from the Fulton County Daily Report via Law.com.
If Scott Fitz Randolph, in his career as a lawyer, ever dreamed of having a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, he could not have envisioned a day like Tuesday.
Randolph didn’t argue before the justices. Instead, the justices argued about Randolph, a disbarred Georgia lawyer, and his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The case, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, asked what should happen when a police officer knocks on the door of a home and asks to search, and the wife says “yes” but the husband says “no.”
Details here from the Fulton County Daily Report via Law.com.
Join the conversation!