Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to enter a shared dwelling solely based on consent, when a physically present resident recently has expressly refused to consent to the entry, in order to arrest a suspect for domestic violence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 120 (2006), this Court clearly established that “a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.” A circuit split exists regarding Randolph’s application when the police enter a dwelling to arrest someone for domestic violence. The weight of authority has clearly established that a home entry based on reported domestic violence is only justified if the alleged victim’s safety may be in immediate danger. Here, the police knew the alleged victim of domestic violence was standing outside the home safely in a park blocks away from Petitioner’s home when they entered his home based on a co-occupant’s consent, despite being aware of Petitioner’s unequivocal non-consent and his physical presence in his home. Accordingly, the questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to enter a shared dwelling solely based on consent, when a physically present resident recently has expressly refused to consent to the entry, in order to arrest a suspect for domestic violence. 2. Whether Georgia v. Randolph clearly established that Respondents were prohibited under the Fourth Amendment from entering Petitioner’s home, when Respondents entered Petitioner’s home to arrest li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued Page him based on his co-occupant’s consent to the home entry, even though Respondents knew Petitioner was physically present and recently expressly refused to consent and that his co-occupant was physically safe and blocks away from the home.