Essay --

Carla Molina December 19th, 2013 Period.8Judicial Review Research Case One Georgia .vs. RandolphSummary This case is about Scott Randolph, whos home was searched without a warrant. callable to this corrupted search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, its stated that Randolphs wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wifes permission was all they needed. After the take care with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the ap pellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolphs home was unconstitutional.Key Details & Ideas Majority faithSaid by Justice David Souter In the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction. He believes that the co- resident physicians consent is not valid because their was the refusal of an other occupant. Beside on the Fourth Amendment it states that a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects. Dissenting OpinionSaid by Justice Scalia It is an act of responsible citi... .... capital of Wisconsin was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unknown punishment to Grah am. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to behavior in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. so Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.OpinionIn my opinion, I actually agree with the court decision because yes although he did committed a crime, to be sentenced for life at young age is pretty harsh. I do agree that he should pay for his consequences but not to that extreme. They should honestly come up with a plan that suits his crime. Plus he has the right of the 8th Amendment, to not condone a cruel punishment if it does not suit the crime in which he committed.