The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that police can now search a home without a warrant so long as one occupant gives permission, even if another occupant refuses to give permission. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court, which voted 6-3 to approve the decision.
The decision in Walter Fernandez v. California, No. 12–7822, was released on February 25, 2014. The decision resulted from a case out of Los Angeles but will impact court rulings and police actions around the country. In this case, police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into anapartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments.
They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, Walter Fernandez came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed Fernandez from the apartment and placed him
under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier,robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the,apartment and, after obtaining Rojas’ oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking Fernandez to the robbery. The trial court denied Fernandez’s motion to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that because Fernandez was not present when Rojas consented to the search, the exception to permissible warrantless consent searches of jointly occupied premises that arises when one of the occupants present objects to the search, Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103, did not apply, and therefore, Fernandez’s suppression motion had been properly denied.
The Supreme Court held Randolph does not extend to this situation, where Rojas’ consent was provided well after petitioner had been removed from their apartment.
Consent searches are permissible warrantless searches, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 228, 231–232, and are clearly reasonable when the consent comes from the sole occupant of the premises. When multiple occupants are involved, the rule extends to the search of the premises or effects of an absent, nonconsenting occupant so long as “the consent of one who possesses common authority over [the] premises or effects” is obtained. United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, 170. However, when “a physically present inhabitan[t]” refuses to consent, that refusal “is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.” Randolph, 547 U. S., at 122–123. A controlling factor in Randolph was the objecting occupant’s physical presence. See, e.g., id., at 106, 108, 109, 114.