Fernandez V. California

Fernandez V. California; Supreme Court of the United States

Facts of the Case

On October 12, 2009, a male later identified as Walter Fernandez assailed and robbed Abel Lopez. Lopez called 911, and police and paramedics arrived at the scene. Detectives probed a known gang location in an adjacent alley where two witnesses directed them to the suspect's apartment nearby. They knocked on the door of the designated apartment in which they heard fighting and screaming inside, and Roxanne Rojas answered. The detectives asked to enter and search the premises, at which point Walter Fernandez approached the door and did not permit them to enter. The detectives arrested Fernandez for domestic violence and took him into custody. They soon returned to the apartment and notified Rojas that Fernandez was arrested on robbery charges. She granted them written and verbal permission to search the apartment. The detectives recovered a gun, a knife, and gang paraphernalia. Fernandez was indicted for robbery. The state trial denied the motion to suppress, and the jury found Fernandez guilty of robbery. Fernandez did not contest the charges for possessing ammunition and firearms. The California Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed and rendered the warrantless search lawful because a co-tenant consented.

Basis of Appeal

On appeal, Fernandez contended that the trial court erred by improperly denying his motion to suppress evidence because it was procured during an unreasonable and unlawful search (as seen in Terry Vs. Ohio) by detectives. Fernandez stated that his conviction should be reversed because it violates his Fourth Amendment rights based on Georgia vs. Randolph.

Disposition

The Supreme Court upheld the search of an apartment with the consent of just one co-tenant. To resolve Fernandez, the Court contended with Georgia v. Randolph, a case that determined that the non-consenting occupant's decision superseded the consenting occupant's if they disagreed about consenting to a search and the non-consenting occupant was physically present. In Fernandez, the police lawfully arrested the non-consenting co-tenant for domestic violence, which physically removed him from the premises. Thus, according to the Court, a present, lawful occupant has a right to invite the police in to search a residence and conduct a search without a warrant, so any other rule would violate the rights of a tenant who willingly consents. Applying Randolph to this case would have burdened the police already investigating a robbery.

I feel unfavorably towards this Supreme Court decision. I dislike it on the premises outlined in Justice Ruth Ginsburg's dissent whereby Fernandez's girlfriend gave consent because she felt pressured by the police to do so. Often the police coerce false confessions out of individuals in order to lock certain individuals away despite their innocence. Furthermore, this decision expands police power to the detriment of the Fourth Amendment. The Court has historically strictly applied the language of the Fourth Amendment to uphold and protect the rights of citizens as written. Now police can search any dwelling without a warrant as long as one occupant is present and consents regardless of the feelings of an absent occupant. This increase in police power under the Fourth Amendment does little to curtail fears that the United States is becoming an unjust police state. The government has found loopholes to operate outside the confines of the U.S. Constitution, and this case serves as another example of the police and government circumventing the Bill of Rights and diminishing basic protections it enshrines.

References

Adelman, B (2014, February 27). Supreme Court Expands Police Power at Expense of 4th Amendment. U.S. American News. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17737-supreme-court- expands-police-power-at-expense-of-4th-amendment

Colb, S. (2014, March 5). The U.S. Supreme Court's View of Consent in Fernandez v. California. Verdict. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://verdict.justia.com/2014/03/05/u-s-supreme-courts-view-consent-fernandez-v- california

Hinderli, K., & Petoskey, R. (n.d.). Fernandez v. California. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-7822

Kerr, O. (2013, November 6). Fernandez Vs. California and the problem of third-party consent. SCOTUSblog RSS. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/fernandez-v-california-and-the-problem-of-third- party-consent/