Home searches with roommate consent
Fernandez v. California
In brief
The Court upheld the California appeals court’s ruling: Fernandez’s earlier objection did not block the search after police removed him and Rojas consented.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · February 25, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court agreed with California’s appeals court that police could search Walter Fernandez’s shared apartment without a warrant after his co-tenant, Rojas, consented. Fernandez had objected earlier but was no longer there when Rojas gave consent.
- Who it affects
- In Fernandez’s case, his objection did not prevent police from relying on Rojas’s consent after they had removed him from the apartment.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The dispute turned on how an earlier Supreme Court ruling, Georgia v. Randolph, applied when police removed an objecting tenant before another tenant consented to a search.
Question presented
Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit warrantless searches when the defendant has previously objected but is no longer present and the co-tenant consents?
What the Court decided
Holding
Randolph does not extend to this situation, where Rojas’ consent was provided well after petitioner had been removed from their apartment. 208 Cal. App. 4th 100, 145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said Georgia v. Randolph did not cover a co-tenant’s consent given well after police had removed the objecting tenant from the apartment.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 6joined the Court's opinion
From the opinions
“The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people “[t]he right . . . to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.””
What's next
The California appeals court’s ruling remains in place; the Supreme Court did not send the case back for another decision.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Fernandez
More questions
- What did Justice Scalia think of Georgia v. Randolph?
- He said Georgia v. Randolph was wrongly decided, but signed on to the Court’s opinion because it faithfully applied that earlier ruling.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.