A woman in a suburban neighborhood hears what she thinks is a domestic dispute erupt from a nearby neighbor's house and alerts the local police department via a 911 phone call.

When the police show up and knock on the door to a now quiet home, a woman answers the door. Fear and relief swirl across her face in an instant as she pleadingly welcomes the officers into the home. The police are about to step into the home, when the woman's husband appears, visibly drunk, from the hallway and gruffly demands the officers to leave.

According to a 5-3 ruling by the Supreme Court last week, the police must vacate the premise in such a circumstance. A decision by the split court now limits police searches. In an instance where one spouse invites the officers into the home, but another tells them to leave, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the officers must meet the demand of the latter.

The decision arose from a 2001 case in which Janet Randolph invited officers into her Georgia home, despite demands from her husband that the police leave. In the home the police found cocaine belonging to the husband and charged him with possession. The Supreme Court found the search to be unreasonable, setting a precedent that could have dire effects for battered spouses and children.

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts voiced concern about women who are in abusive relationships, and aren't able to invite police into their home. In a side opinion supporting the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "Assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other's constitutional right to deny entry to their castle."

Virtually, this means the same thing for a spouse who wants the police to come in for fear of real or imagined danger. Stevens's argument could support a case to allow police searches just as easily as it could oppose it. In what conceivable incidence could this be a good? Even in the original case, the husband had cocaine, an illegal substance that could destroy a family's stability.

Justice David H. Souter called Roberts' concerns about domestic violence a "red herring."

At what point did the safety of a spouse or child become an irrelevant, unimportant topic? Apparently, last week.