Fernandez v. California
134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The consent of one occupant of a shared residence is sufficient to authorize a warrantless search, even if a co-occupant had previously objected, so long as the objecting co-occupant is no longer physically present due to a lawful arrest or detention.
Facts:
- Walter Fernandez robbed and assaulted Abel Lopez with a knife after a gang-related confrontation.
- Police investigating the robbery heard screaming and fighting from an apartment building and knocked on the door.
- Roxanne Rojas, who lived in the apartment with Fernandez, answered the door appearing to be injured and crying.
- When police asked to enter, Fernandez appeared at the door and objected, stating, 'You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights.'
- Police, suspecting Fernandez had assaulted Rojas, removed him from the apartment and lawfully placed him under arrest.
- Approximately one hour after Fernandez was taken away, a detective returned to the apartment and obtained both oral and written consent from Rojas to search the premises.
- The search revealed gang paraphernalia, a sawed-off shotgun, ammunition, and other incriminating evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter Fernandez was charged in a California state trial court with multiple felonies, including robbery and domestic violence.
- Before trial, Fernandez filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the apartment, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Fernandez was subsequently convicted on the charges of robbery and infliction of corporal injury.
- Fernandez, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- The California Court of Appeal, as the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding the search was valid because Fernandez was not present when his co-occupant consented.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied Fernandez's petition for review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a warrantless search of a shared residence based on the consent of one occupant when a co-occupant, who had previously objected to the search while physically present, has since been lawfully arrested and removed from the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. A warrantless search of a shared residence does not violate the Fourth Amendment when consent is obtained from a co-occupant after another occupant, who previously objected, has been lawfully removed from the premises. The court's holding in Georgia v. Randolph was a narrow exception to the rule that any co-occupant can consent to a search, and that exception applies only when the objecting occupant is physically present. Because Fernandez was lawfully arrested and removed, he was no longer present to object when Rojas consented, making her consent valid. The court rejected the argument that an objection remains in effect after the objector's departure, as such a rule would create numerous practical problems regarding its duration and scope and is inconsistent with the social expectations that underpinned the Randolph decision.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. While believing Georgia v. Randolph was wrongly decided, the majority opinion is a faithful application of that precedent. Additionally, property law does not support the petitioner's argument. There is no established property law principle that one joint tenant's objection can override another's invitation to a guest, meaning the police did not commit a trespass when they entered with Rojas's consent.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The Court's opinion faithfully applies Georgia v. Randolph, but Randolph itself was wrongly decided. The proper Fourth Amendment analysis should simply be that a warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from someone authorized to give it. Rojas had common authority and her consent was found to be voluntary, which should have ended the inquiry.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment because Fernandez's express, on-premises objection should have remained dispositive. The majority shrinks Randolph to a petite size by allowing police to circumvent a clear objection simply by arresting the objector and returning later to get consent from another occupant. This approach undermines the warrant requirement, which is the bulwark of Fourth Amendment protection, especially when police had ample probable cause and time to obtain a warrant after arresting Fernandez. The police should not be able to dodge the warrant requirement by removing the objector from the scene.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the exception created in Georgia v. Randolph. It establishes a bright-line rule that an objecting co-tenant must be physically present at the time consent is given by another for the objection to be valid. This ruling provides law enforcement with clearer guidance, effectively allowing them to proceed with a consent search if an objecting party is lawfully removed from the scene. The decision limits a co-occupant's ability to issue a lasting 'veto' over a search, prioritizing the consenting occupant's authority once the objector is no longer present.
Unlock the full brief for Fernandez v. California