According to a 2006 USSC case, under what circumstances cannot evidence be used against someone who refuses consent to search, even if a co-occupant consents?

The circumstance in which evidence cannot be used against someone who refuses consent to search, despite a co-occupant giving consent, is rooted in the ruling of Georgia v. Randolph. In this case, the Supreme Court held that when two people share a space and one consents to a search while the other explicitly refuses, the refusal by the non-consenting occupant takes precedence. This decision is based on the understanding that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals' rights to privacy and that consent must be freely given without objection from co-inhabitants.

This principle reinforces the idea that law enforcement cannot disregard the rights of individuals who do not consent to a search simply because another party in the same premises agrees. In essence, the refusal of one co-occupant limits the authority of law enforcement to conduct a search, highlighting the strong legal protections surrounding individual rights even within shared living spaces.