The Daily Collegian's incomplete analysis of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Randolph makes me question whether the Board of Opinion read the Court's opinion ("Supreme Court: Ruling on searches could hurt victims of violence," March 30).

As Justice Stephen Breyer points out in his concurring opinion, the search at issue in Randolph was a search solely for evidence. Justice David Souter doesn't merely call Chief Justice John Roberts's concern about domestic violence a red herring, he explains quite clearly why the dissent's argument is a red herring. The idea that the Court's decision will result in the police leaving in the editorial's hypothetical domestic violence scenario is laughable. As Souter points out, the dissent's argument "rests on the failure to distinguish two different issues: when police may enter without committing a trespass and when police may enter to search for evidence." The majority opinion gives the police authority to enter a residence to protect an occupant from domestic violence.

Following Randolph, the police may still enter to allow the threatened spouse the opportunity to collect belongings and safely leave the premises. Randolph merely prevents the police from rummaging through the house without a warrant to search for evidence when one occupant exercises their right to refuse consent to a warrantless search.