October Term 2013 · Docket 12-7822
Can a co-tenant's prior objection block a later police search?
The dispute centers on whether a co-tenant's earlier refusal to allow entry invalidates a later consent given by another resident.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Jeffrey Fisher argued third-party consent creates a rebuttable presumption of authority.
He stated social custom allows one resident to speak for all when police arrive.
The state argued a present co-tenant's consent remains valid despite prior objections.
They claimed absent tenants lack authority to block entry while away.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the limits of third-party consent during home searches. It asks if an absent tenant's prior objection overrides a present tenant's later permission.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 13, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 15-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the search ruled invalid due to the prior objection.
The state wants the search upheld based on the present tenant's consent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues a prior objection creates a rebuttable presumption against entry.
The state argues a present co-tenant's consent is not nullified by an absent tenant's prior objection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked why a joint tenant cannot invite others into the home.
Justice Breyer asked if a tenant can invite police into her own house.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-15
Why it matters
This case defines the balance between individual privacy and police authority in shared homes. It clarifies when a resident's consent overrides another's refusal. The outcome shapes future searches in multi-occupant dwellings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 29-19 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 29-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.