COURT TO WEIGH CONFLICTING PERMISSIONS FOR SEARCHES

Justices To Hear GA. Case Where Couple Differed On Letting Officers In Home

WASHINGTON - Scott Randolph didn't want police to search his home after
officers showed up to answer his wife's domestic disturbance call. She had
no such reservations.

Janet Randolph not only let them in -- she led officers to evidence later
used to charge Randolph with drug possession.

The Supreme Court said Monday it will use the case to clarify when police
can search homes. The high court previously has said searches based on a
cohabitant's consent is OK, but it's not clear whether that applies when
another resident is present and objects.

Under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the court has generally expanded
government powers for police searches.

A trial court upheld the searches in the Randolph case, but a Georgia
appeals court reversed it in a ruling the state Supreme Court affirmed in
November.

In siding with Scott Randolph, the courts ruled police must defer to an
objecting occupant's position when two people have equal use and control of
the home.

In their Supreme Court filing, Georgia prosecutors said the ruling "focuses
arbitrarily on the rights of the objecting occupant, to the detriment of
the consenting occupant who was trying to report a crime and who had just
as much access and control over the home as her husband."

Scott Randolph counters that states have the authority to give their
citizens privacy rights that go beyond the U.S. Constitution. A husband's
interest in privacy outweighs the wife's property right to allow a search,
he argues.

Separately, the court said it will consider whether police went too far in
questioning when officers taunted a murder suspect with the possibility of
the death penalty after he invoked his right to an attorney.

A Maryland state court dismissed the case against Leeander Blake, saying
his "Miranda" rights were violated.

Blake and Terrence Tolbert were charged with murder in the death of
Straughan Lee Griffin, who was shot in the head Sept. 19, 2002, in Annapolis.

Blake, who was 17 at the time, initially refused to talk to police when he
was arrested and taken to jail. When a police officer delivered a copy of
the charging documents listing death as a possible penalty, another officer
told Blake, "I bet you want to talk now, huh?"

About half an hour later, Blake told police he did want to talk to them and
made incriminating statements about the murder without consulting a lawyer.

The Maryland state court ruled last year the statements couldn't be used at
trial because Blake had invoked his constitutional right to be represented
by a lawyer. The comment, "I bet you want to talk now, huh," was a
functional equivalent of interrogation, the appeals court said.

Illegal Drug or Legal Religious Sacrament?

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether a church in New Mexico
can continue using hallucinogenic tea in its religious services.

At issue is whether use of the tea, which contains a drug banned under the
federal Controlled Substances Act, is protected under freedom-of-religion
laws. The Bush administration contends the tea is illegal and use of it
potentially dangerous for church members.

Justices will review a lower court ruling that allowed the Brazil-based
church -- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal -- to import and
use the hoasca tea while the case was appealed. Arguments will be heard in
the court's next term beginning in October.

The church, which has about 140 members in the United States and 8,000
worldwide, says the herbal brew is a central sacrament in its religious
practice, which is a blend of Christian beliefs and traditions rooted in
the Amazon basin.