Fernandez v. California

In Georgia v. Randolph, the U.S. Supreme Court held officers may not conduct a warrantless search of a home over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident, even if another resident consents to the search. Even though he was not present and objecting when Rojas gave the investigator consent to search the apartment, Fernandez argued his previously stated objection to the search of the apartment was still valid after he had been taken into custody.

The court reiterated that a person’s objection to a consent search is only valid when the person is present and objecting. If a person is present, objects to the search, but is then lawfully removed from the scene, a person with common authority, such as Rojas in this case, can give the officers valid consent to search. A person’s objection does not remain in place after his lawful arrest.

In addition, the court noted officers cannot remove a person who might validly refuse consent to search in order to avoid that person’s objection. When officers remove a person who might validly object to a search, the court will to determine if the person’s emoval was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Here, Fernandez’s removal was objectively reasonable.