In which case did the Supreme Court rule that consent can be obtained from an occupant without the other's consent?

The ruling in Georgia v. Randolph established a crucial precedent regarding consent and searches in situations where multiple occupants are present. The Supreme Court determined that in circumstances where two co-occupants are present and one gives consent to a search while the other expressly refuses, law enforcement may not proceed with the search based on the consent of the consenting party alone. This reflects the principle that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in shared spaces, and one occupant's refusal to consent must be respected by law enforcement.

The importance of the case lies in the clear distinction it makes regarding the validity of consent in shared living situations. If one occupant speaks up against a search, that objection must be honored, highlighting the balance between law enforcement interests and the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In contrast, other cases mentioned do not address consent in a similar context or share the same legal implications. For instance, Riley v. California deals with the search of cell phones incident to arrest, Terry v. Ohio addresses stop-and-frisk procedures, and Katz v. United States focuses on the expectation of privacy in telephone conversations. Each of these cases contributes to our understanding of search and seizure law in their own specific contexts, but only Georgia v. Randolph directly addresses the issue of