Title

Fernandez v. California

Presenter Information

Tanya Marri

Document Type

Oral Presentation

Location

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.

Faculty Mentor(s)

Divine, Teresa

Additional Mentoring Department

Law and Justice

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
May 15th, 10:20 AM May 15th, 10:40 AM

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.