Palindih 1

Fernandez vs. California

The decision of the case Fernandez vs. California has been made by the vote of 6 to 3, stating
that the officers are allowed not to obtain warrant when the search is reasonable, having a strong
justification. Under this certain condition, the warrantless search does not violate the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and
requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.In this case,
there were 6 justices voted for California and there were 3 justices against the decision.
The case of Fernando vs. California concerns about the tenant objection is valid in prohibiting
the officers to search and seizure the tenants apartment while the tenant is not physically there.
The police came over to Fernandezs apartment due to the fact that they suspected Fernandez
involvement in gang, which related in the robbery. When they were in the apartment, the police
heard someone screamed, indicating there was a fight inside of the apartment. The police
knocked the door and Roxanne Rojas open the door; she was bleeding with some injuries in her
body. When one the officers was about to ask Roxanne what was going on, Fernandez appeared
and got mad at the officer. He asked the officers to back up and left his house. Looking at the
condition of Roxanne, the officers assume that Roxanne was abused by Fernandez. Therefore,
the officers arrested him with the charge of robbery and abusing case. After taking Fernandez to
the police office, the officers came back to Fernandezs apartment to get Roxannes permission in
oral and written form to do searching the evidence, which related to his criminal case. As a
result, the officers found gang paraphernalia, a knife, and a gun.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who on the petitioners behalf, believes that the search process in
Fernandezs case has violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the officers should concern about
social custom that the permission of the tenants is necessary to approve the search and seizure
process inside of his or her house. The officer should have value the objection of the petitioner,
who owns the apartment, not to step inside of his apartment. The police should not ask the
permission from Roxanne Rojas, who is only the co tenant and has no right to get the authority
delegation of Fernandez.
On the other hand, Justice Samuel A. Alito explains that the warrantless searches is valid and
does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is justified. Moreover, the presence of one
tenant, allowing the search process in his or her property is valid due to the fact that the other
tenant was arrested before the inspection happened. So the authority of search process can be
passed on to Roxanne Rojas.
This issue is important since under certain circumstances, the warrantless searches do not violate
the Fourth Amendment due to the fact the police have legitimate reasons to suspect Fernandez,
such as his tattoo looks as same as the robbery gang members have. Although the officers do not
have search warrant and Fernandez objected the officers to enter his property, the remaining
tenant, Roxanne agreed to give the permission to the officers to inspect the apartment to find the
evidence related to the robbery.

Palindih 2

The ideology of the presence of the tenant that Fernandez tried to pull out comes from the idea of
Randolph vs. Georgia, where the both of tenants were there and objected the search process by
the officer. While on Fernandezs case, he refused the search process before he was arrested;
however, an hour later, the officers came back and get the permission from the co-tenant, who
was there, to inspect the apartment. Since Fernandez was no longer there, his objection does not
matter.
"FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed February 16,
2015, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_7822.