Fernandez v. California
Document Type
Oral Presentation
Campus where you would like to present
SURC Room 137A
Start Date
15-5-2014
End Date
15-5-2014
Keywords
Search, Seizure, Warrantless
Abstract
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Over the years, there have been several exceptions which proved possible the warrantless searches of homes. One of the most important exceptions to the rule is the consent search authorized by a co-tenant. There has been one substantial case dealing with the issue of co-tenant authority for a reasonable search. In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that an officer cannot rely on a co-tenant’s consent when an opposing party is present and objecting. In Fernandez v. California, officers detained a defendant for domestic violence, assault, and robbery. Later, the police showed up at the defendant’s apartment and received oral and written consent for a search of the home from a co-tenant. Fernandez v. California deals with an event in which a co-tenant consents to a search when the original objector to the search is not on the premises. In 2014, a decision by the Supreme Court was made on Fernandez v. California stating that Georgia v. Randolph did not extend the objection to the search beyond the objector’s presence. This paper will analyze the impact and implication of co-tenant consent on criminal justice and delve into the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding co-tenant consent as an insight into Fernandez v. California.
Recommended Citation
Marri, Tanya, "Fernandez v. California" (2014). Symposium Of University Research and Creative Expression (SOURCE). 37.
https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/source/2014/oralpresentations/37
Additional Mentoring Department
Law and Justice
Fernandez v. California
SURC Room 137A
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Over the years, there have been several exceptions which proved possible the warrantless searches of homes. One of the most important exceptions to the rule is the consent search authorized by a co-tenant. There has been one substantial case dealing with the issue of co-tenant authority for a reasonable search. In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that an officer cannot rely on a co-tenant’s consent when an opposing party is present and objecting. In Fernandez v. California, officers detained a defendant for domestic violence, assault, and robbery. Later, the police showed up at the defendant’s apartment and received oral and written consent for a search of the home from a co-tenant. Fernandez v. California deals with an event in which a co-tenant consents to a search when the original objector to the search is not on the premises. In 2014, a decision by the Supreme Court was made on Fernandez v. California stating that Georgia v. Randolph did not extend the objection to the search beyond the objector’s presence. This paper will analyze the impact and implication of co-tenant consent on criminal justice and delve into the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding co-tenant consent as an insight into Fernandez v. California.
Faculty Mentor(s)
Divine, Teresa