Supreme Court Broadens Police Power to Conduct Warrantless Home Searches

The Fourth Amendment generally requires the police to obtain a
warrant before searching a home, though that requirement may be
avoided if the homeowner consents to the search. But happens when
two (or more) people reside in the same home, and only one of them
consents to the search while the other refuses? Do the police have
sufficient consent to conduct a warrentless search in that
instance?

The Supreme Court addressed this question in the 2006 case of
Georgia
v. Randolph and came down against the police. At issue was
a domestic violence investigation where the male suspect refused to
let the police search his home while his wife welcomed the search.
The police went in. Yet according to the Supreme Court, the man’s
refusal should have stopped the cops in their tracks. “A physically
present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search
[of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent
of a fellow occupant,” the Court ruled.

Today, the Supreme Court returned to this subject with a new
ruling in favor of law enforcement. At issue in
Fernandez v. California was a 2009 search by the Los
Angeles Police Department of the home of a robbery suspect. When
the officers first arrived, suspect Walter Fernandez denied them
entry, but because his girlfriend Roxanne Rojas exhibited signs of
recent injury, Fernandez was arrested on separate charges of
domestic violence. While Fernandez was being booked, one of the
officers returned to the apartment and gained Rojas’ permission to
conduct a search, which soon turned up evidence linking Fernandez
to the robbery.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito upheld the
LAPD’s actions. “A warrantless consent search is reasonable and
thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the
availability of a warrant,” Alito wrote. Moreover, he added,
“Denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police
to enter her home would also show disrespect for her
independence.”

Writing in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, accused the majority of
weakening the Fourth Amendment and granting the police too much
latitude. “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,”
Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge
it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral
magistrate.” This ruling, she charged, “shrinks to petite size our
holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”