<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">SEARCH & SEIZURE—C</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">ONSENT
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">S</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">EARCH</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:
The exception in <i>Georgia v. Randolph </i>does not<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">apply when the co-tenant who objected to the officers’ entry has been lawfully arrested and<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">removed from the scene.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Fernandez v. California</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">,
571 US __ (February 25, 2014). Defendant robbed the victim,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Lopez, on the street, cutting him with a knife. Lopez called 911, the police responded, and a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">citizen directed them to an apartment. They heard sounds of fighting and a woman screaming,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">and so they knocked on the door. A woman, Rojas, answered; she was crying, appeared to be<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">injured, and explained that she had been in a fight. When the officers asked Rojas to step out in<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">order for them to do a “protective sweep” of the apartment, defendant appeared, wearing only<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">boxers, and said, “You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights.” The officers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">eventually arrested him for assaulting the woman and transported him to jail. About an hour<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">later, the officers returned to the apartment and obtained Rojas’s consent to search it. They<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">found weapons and clothes that connected defendant to the robbery, as well as a sawed-off<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">shotgun. He was charged with robbery and unlawful possession of the shotgun, and he moved to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">suppress relying on
<i>Georgia v. Randolph</i>, 547 US 103 (2006), to argue that Rojas’s consent was<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">not valid because he previously had objected to the officers’ entry. The trial court found that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Rojas had voluntarily consented to the search and denied defendant’s motion, and he was<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">convicted on the charges. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that
<i>Randolph<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">did not apply because defendant was not physically present when Rojas consented, and the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">California Supreme Court denied review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">HELD</span></i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"> Affirmed (Alito, J.) (6-3 decision).
The state court correctly denied defendant’s<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">motion to suppress. [1] “Consent searches are part of the standard investigatory techniques of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">law enforcement agencies and are a constitutionally permissible and wholly legitimate aspect of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">effective police activity. ... The owner of a home has a right to allow others to enter and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">examine the premises, and there is no reason why the owner should not be permitted to extend<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">this same privilege to police officers if that is the owner’s choice.” [2] Under
<i>United States v.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Matlock</span></i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 415 US 164 (1974), the
general rule is that “the consent of one who possesses common<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, non-consenting person with<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">whom that authority is shared.” [3] The “narrow exception” to that rule announced in
<i>Randolph<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">is “limited to situations in which the objecting occupant is present” when the officers obtain<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">consent from another occupant. [4] For purposes of the
<i>Randolph </i>exception, “an occupant who<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">absent for any other reason.” The standard that applies is “objective reasonableness” and does<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">not turn on an allegedly “improper motive” in removing the objecting tenant. Because defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">did not dispute that the officers had lawfully arrested him and removed him from the scene, his<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">objection no longer mattered for purposes of
<i>Randolph</i>. [5] Defendant’s argument that his<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">“objection, once made, should last until it is withdrawn” by him would be unworkable for many<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">reasons. [6] The mere fact that the officers could obtain a warrant does not prevent them from<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">instead obtaining consent to a search: “A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant. Even with<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">to search, the magistrate who must review the warrant application, and the party willing to give<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">consent. When a warrantless search is justified, requiring the police to obtain a warrant may<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">unjustifiably interfere with legitimate law enforcement strategies. Such a requirement may also<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">impose an unmerited burden on the person who consents to an immediate search, since the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">warrant application procedure entails delay.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">NOTES:
</span></i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">[a]
<b>In a nice nod to victims</b>, the majority noted: “Denying someone in Rojas’s<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">position the right to allow the police to enter
<i>her </i>home would also show disrespect for her<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">independence. Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">home until such time as he chose to relent. The Fourth Amendment does not give him that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">power.” [b] In
<i>Randolph</i>, the Court suggested in <i>dictum </i>that consent by one occupant might not<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">be sufficient if the police removed the potentially objecting tenant from the scene in order to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">avoid his objection. In this opinion, the Court backtracked from that suggestion and instead<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">adopted a standard of “objective reasonableness”—whether the lawfully arrested and removed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the person, regardless of what their motivation for doing that was. [c] Justices Scalia and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Thomas concurred by reiterating their position that
<i>Randolph </i>“was wrongly decided.” In their<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">view, Rojas’s voluntary consent was sufficient to justify the officers’ entry and search despite<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">defendant’s objection, regardless of where he might be. [d] Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justices<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Sotomayor and Kagan) dissented on the ground that, in their view, defendant’s “objection to the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">search did</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body>
</html>