Garcia 1

Ignacio Garcia
Political Science 001
Professor Lawton
03/27/18
In the News… Current Supreme Court Cases
I chose the Fernandez v. California case to study. The case addresses the question of whether
the Fourth amendment applies when a person who lives with another doesn’t consent but is no
longer present and the cohabitating person gives consent. Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit
this warrantless search? The court ruled in a 6-3 majority opinion that the Fourth Amendment
does allow the warrantless search.
The main points of the argument against a warrantless search being lawful if one of two co-
tenants consent to the search and the other tenant is not present are as follows. According to a
previous ruling in the case of Georgia vs Randolph as long as the objecting tenant was present
then the search was not lawful. The court had based this decision on the premise that the police
officer had to put himself in the shoes of a strangers and what would be the social expectation.
Another point was that a Person has invoked his right and his objection has been made clear to
the officers. It should stand until convicted of crime wherein he no longer holds equal ownership
of property. Also, that it does not take police long to get a warrant, it takes about 15 minutes to
get one over the phone. So, the time to go through the legal system to not obstructing the
individuals right is not cumbersome and can be done quickly.
The argument for a warrantless search being lawful if one of two co-tenants consents to the
search and the other tenant is not present are as follows. Since the defendant was no longer
physically present the rules of Randolph no longer apply. Also, that when people choose to live
together, and one person is absent the other person has the authority. Another point was that you
create a nonshared place i.e. a lockbox or closet only one person has access to.
I found this case to be important due to its implications on other future cases. One of the
points during the oral argument was that if they ruled that the warrantless search was lawful then
the ruling of Randolph would be void. This means that in order to search a home in which there
was one person giving consent and another objecting, all the police would have to do is remove
the objecting party from the house and they can have a warrantless search. I think this is absurd
when all the police have to do is convince or detain the objecting person outside their property to
conduct a search when they can get a warrant in fifteen minutes.
Question: Do you agree with the courts opinion? If so why or why not?
"Fernandez v. California." Oyez. Accessed March 26, 2018.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-7822.
 Garcia 2

Notes
Argument against a warrantless search being lawful if one of two co-tenants consents to the
search and the other tenant is not present
 Based off social expectations on prior cases like King (where simply the one person
leaves the person doesn’t speak for him)
 Coolidge (resident can bring evidence to front door where police wait or exchange verbal
information)
 Person has invoked his right and his objection has been made. It should stand until
convicted of crime wherein he no longer holds equal ownership of property
 Does not take police long to get a warrant, it takes about 15 minutes to get one over the
phone. (police can shield spouse during the time it takes to get said warrant or apply
Coolidge case and bring evidence to police to then provide probable cause)
 Protecting sanctity of privacy with 4th amendment right
 According to justice Elena Kagan Randolph overrides/rejects Matlock’s view
 Joining other sides argument reduces Randolph ruling to nothing
Argument for a warrantless search being lawful if one of two co-tenants consents to the search
and the other tenant is not present
 when people choose to live together, and one person is absent the other person has the
authority.
 According to Randolph (police must place themselves in the shoes of a civilian/stranger
and must obey social expectations objecting [person must be on premises]) when a
person leaves social expectations change.
 Matlock when 2 cohabit the same housing and one leaves/ is absent then the other is in
charge. This is the social expectation (assumption of risk idea, that when you live with
another you assume the risk that they will admit visitors not to your liking.).
 Randolph (Randolph puts a gloss on that rule which says when you live with another, you
put -- you assume the risk of your inability to control access to the premises when you are
not there.) the disagreeing parties must be physically present.
 You can create a nonshared place i.e. a lockbox or closet only one person has access to.
(Rodriguez when given consent its only to shared living spaces)