In the case of Georgia v. Scott Fitz Randolph, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that police cannot search a home without a warrant when one resident gives consent to search but another resident present at the scene refuses it. The case arose from an incident where Janet Randolph called police alleging her husband, Scott Fitz Randolph, took their son away during a domestic dispute. When officers arrived and asked to search their house for drugs, Mr. Randolph refused while Mrs. Randolph gave permission leading to his arrest on cocaine possession charges after evidence was found by law enforcement officials inside their shared residence.

In the dissenting opinion for Georgia v. Scott Fitz Randolph, Justice Stevens argued that a co-occupant's refusal to consent should be respected and override another occupant's permission to search a shared residence. He emphasized that the majority’s decision contradicted previous rulings which held that police could not enter without a warrant when one resident objected, even if another agreed. Stevens also highlighted concerns about potential abuse of power by law enforcement officers who might manipulate or coerce occupants into giving consent. Furthermore, he noted inconsistencies in how the court treated physical objects versus information; while an object owned jointly can't be used against its owner without their consent, under this ruling personal information could potentially be used against someone despite their explicit objection.