Roommate vs. roommate: Supreme Court considers police searches

Police found a sawed-off shotgun, gang-affiliated clothes, ammunition and a knife when they searched the apartment, which they presented as evidence that Fernandez was guilty of the assault. Fernandez argued that the evidence was seized illegally.

The trial court and the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, disagreed with Fernandez and allowed the evidence. The California Supreme Court denied Fernandez’s appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

So does the warrantless search run afoul of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to agree that the search was illegal. “There was probable cause in this case,” Sotomayor said. “Just get a warrant. I don’t know why that’s difficult for police officers to understand.”

The justices’ questions mainly revolved around whether or not Fernandez’s refusal was still valid after he’d been arrested, and whether his rights to refuse a search trumped Rojas’ right to invite the police into her home.

“Her authority to protect her family should not be held hostage by an absent co-tenant,” said Louis Karlin, the attorney for the state of California and the police officers.

But Fernandez’s attorney Jeffrey Fisher disagreed, arguing that Fernandez’s right to refuse a search “has to be valid until it’s impossible to enforce,” which would likely be until he was convicted of a crime and in prison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *