Ryan Wagner 10/11/2013
Acct 352 Writing Assignment Cynthia DePue
Once a co-tenant has told police officers that they do not have permission to enter his
home, does the fourth amendment allow officers to obtain consent by removing the
objecting tenant against his will and then proceeding to receive permission from the other
tenant shortly thereafter?
This is the main issue being debated in the pending Supreme Court case Fernandez Vs.
California. After Walter Fernandez attacked and robbed Abel Lopez, investigators
determined where he was located and requested entry to conduct a search. Roxanne Rojas,
Fernandez’s co-tenant, agreed to the search but was quickly overruled by Fernandez who
stepped forward and refused the detectives entry. Fernandez was immediately taken into
custody, and once removed from the scene, Rojas consented to the search both verbally
and in writing. The investigators ultimately found gang paraphernalia, a knife, and a gun,
evidence that will be used against Fernandez in the upcoming trial.
This case can easily be connected with Georgia Vs. Randolph in 2006, which held that “a
physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home]
is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.” The main question
surrounding this case is whether the same holds true when the police forcibly remove the
objector from the scene before seeking permission to search from the co-tenant. The
California Court of Appeal ruled Randolph does not hold true in this situation because
police nullify the legal effect of one’s invocation of his constitutional right to privacy when
