Fernandez v. California
Citation and Court
571 U.S. 292 (2014) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Police suspected Walter Fernandez of robbery and went to an apartment where they heard sounds of a struggle. Fernandez answered the door and refused to consent to a search. Officers, noting signs of domestic violence, arrested Fernandez and removed him from the premises. An hour and a half later, officers returned, obtained consent to search from Fernandez’s co-tenant (his girlfriend), and found incriminating evidence.
Issue
Does a co-tenant’s consent to search a shared dwelling suffice to authorize a warrantless search when the objecting tenant has been removed from the premises?
Holding
Yes; once the objecting co-tenant has been lawfully removed from the premises, a remaining co-tenant may give valid consent for a warrantless search, and the prior objection does not bind the absent tenant indefinitely.
Rule / Doctrine
Under Georgia v. Randolph, a physically present tenant’s contemporaneous objection to a consent search blocks that search. But Randolph’s protection applies only while the objecting tenant is present. Once the objecting co-tenant is lawfully removed (here, by arrest for domestic violence), a remaining co-tenant may consent, and that consent is valid.
Significance
Fernandez limits the reach of Georgia v. Randolph by confining that ruling to situations where the objecting co-tenant remains physically present. It gives police a practical method to secure consent searches by lawfully removing the objecting party. The case highlights the tension between co-tenant consent rights and individual privacy expectations.