What exactly are you trying to argue? First of all, the portion of Roberts’ opinion that you are criticizing is not fundamental to his decision in the case, but merely offered for its persuasive effect (which you obviously don’t agree with).

Regardless, as to your point — Yes, if Mrs. Randolph was battered and bloody, the police could do more. But what about the other incidents of domestic violence where it is not so apparent while standing at the door that the woman is being abused? Under the majority’s reasoning, absent some other warrant exception (exigency, etc), the officer cannot enter the home over the objection of a co-tenant. That does, without a doubt, have implications in situations of domestic violence.

The only thing that makes me feel better, about this situation, is that Breyer’s concurrence (the swing vote), would seem to come out different in a situation such as the one I have offered. However, it may not, since his reasoning would turn on how a particular judge would weigh the “totality of the circumstances.”

He begins by referring to “. . . cases in which abused spouses seek to authorize police entry into a home they share with a nonconsenting abuser.”

Of course, the police have to enter a home to search its innards, but entry and search are two very different acts.

Roberts goes on: “The majority’s rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects.”

Once again, Roberts seems to equate ‘entry’ with ’search.’

Seems to me that most (if not all) states now have laws that require the police to arrest a man (or woman) for beating his (or her) spouse when the there’s clear evidence of the abuse.

If Mrs. Randolph had appeared at the door battered and bloody, the police could have gone right in, knocked down the door to Mr. Randolph’s law office (if he decided to hide there) and arrested him on nothing more nor less than the appearance of Mrs. Randolph, and her claim that Mr. Randolph had beat her.
But the police would have no good right to then search the house.

Am I missing something here, or does Justice Roberts appear to be confused about the difference between entering a home and searching a home?

1. The concern expressed by all of the justices for victims of domestic violence — It will be interesting to see if that same concern surfaces in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana;

2. The Stevens-Scalia “debate” concerning originalism; and

3. Thomas’ criticizing the majority as being “unduly formalistic.”