The case of Fernandez v.

California happened as a result of Walter Fernandezs decision to both

assault and steal from Abel Lopez on October 12, 2009.1 Detectives were sent to investigate the culprit
and they later found Fernandez at his home. It is important to note that Fernandez had a roommate
named Roxanne Rojas and she answered the door when the detectives came. As the detectives were
asking Rojas for permission to search the apartment, Fernandez appears and refuses them.1 Fernandez
was then arrested and brought into custody. While Fernandez was in custody, the detectives asked Rojas
for permission to search the apartment again. This time around, Rojas agreed to the search both orally
and in writing.1 With that search, the detectives were able to obtain many incriminating evidence against
Hernandez. The main issue discussed regarding this case is whether or not the evidence obtained should
be considered legitimate in court. One side of the argument is that the evidence isnt legitimate because it
wasnt obtained through a warranted search. Fernandez even refused to the search, so it would make the
search unreasonable. In addition, the detectives should of requested for a search warrant when
Fernandez rejected the search. The other side of the argument is that the evidence is legitimate because
Rojas agreed to the search afterwards. The final decision that was made by the justices stated that the
search of Hernandez's apartment was legal and reasonable.1 Six justices voted for the decision while the
other three justices voted against the decision. The decision was made because Hernandez was removed
from his household through an arrest and thus gave Rojas the ability to authorize the search. As she was
also a resident of the apartment, her decision to let the detectives search the apartment made the search
legal and reasonable.1 As a result, Hernandezs attempt at throwing out the evidence on the basis of an
illegal search was foiled. This is the first case that has made an unwarranted search reasonable through
the consensus of a co-tenant, even when the culprit refused the search. This makes it important because
it will have a impact for a long time. When a similar case happens in the future, Fernandez v. California
will be referenced and used to make the decision. Ideology definitely had an impact on this case. In the
past, many people have been released because the evidence that the authorities had on them were
obtained without a warrant. Fernandez was also trying to become free of charges this way.Ultimately, the
justices referred back to the Fourth Amendment. The most important thing concerning the Fourth
Amendment was whether or not the search was reasonable.1 In this case, the justices saw that Rojas
made the search reasonable and overruled the search warrant requirement. Questions: How do you feel

about the ultimate decision to make the search reasonable even though a search warrant was not used?
Do you think it is fair for Fernandez? (considering there were many past cases where evidence were
obtained without a search warrant made the search unreasonable) Citation: 1) Chicago-Kent College of
Law at Illinois Tech. "Fernandez v. California." Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-7822 (accessed
February 18, 2016).