Yancoskie's wife had her attorney contact the police and asked to be interviewed about her husband's illegal marijuana manufacturing operation. Police interviewed the wife on April 12, 2004, and were told that Yancoskie would be out of town on a fishing trip the following week. On April 20, 2004, the police went to Yancoskie’s house and were permitted to enter the house by his wife. The police asked for her consent to search the house and she told them that she would need to contact an attorney. After contacting her attorney, the wife notified the police that she would not consent and the police went to obtain a search warrant. Before the police had obtained the warrant, they were told to return to the house because the wife had given her written consent to search the house. The officer seized marijuana, drug paraphernalia, personal and financial records, a motorcycle, a pistol and more than $90,000 during the search.

Yancoskie was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver, unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. He appealed the conviction and he argued that the warrantless search was unreasonable. The Superior Court disagreed and upheld his conviction.

The Court looked at U.S. Supreme Court cases to form its opinion. The Supreme Court has held that a co-occupant of a house may give valid consent for a warrantless search of the premises if the co-occupant shares authority over the house. The Superior Court stated that a wife does share authority over the house of a married couple.

However, the Supreme Court has held that if the other occupant is present and refuses to consent to the search, a search warrant must be obtained because the search is unreasonable. Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (2006). The police may remove the other occupant if there is no evidence that the police removed the occupant for the purpose of avoiding a possible objection to the search. Id.

However, the Supreme Court has held that if the other occupant is present and refuses to consent to the search, a search warrant must be obtained because the search is unreasonable. Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (2006). The police may remove the other occupant if there is no evidence that the police removed the occupant for the purpose of avoiding a possible objection to the search. Id.