Did the court cases Miranda v. Arizona and Georgia v. Randolph happen 10 years apart?
Georgia v. Randolph Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant consent rule" established in "United States v. Matlock", 415 U.S. 164 (1974), which permitted one resident to consent in absence of the co-occupant.
Stansbury v. California Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a "per curiam" decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody." 