Georgia v. Randolph — Stevens, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Stevens concurred, emphasizing that historical property rules regarding spouses differ from modern constitutional equality under Reed v. Reed, and suggesting officers inform co-occupants of their independent rights to object or consent. He joined the Court's opinion but noted the importance of equal partnership in modern law. Separate dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer contested the majority's reliance on social expectations and bright-line rules.