Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126

Police responded to report of a violent assault and domestic disturbance at a Los Angeles apartment; officers encountered Roxanne Rojas (injured) and petitioner Walter Fernandez (agitated).
Fernandez, in boxer shorts at the doorway, told officers they had no right to enter; officers removed and arrested him on suspicion of assault.
About an hour after Fernandez’s arrest, Detective Clark obtained both oral and written consent from Rojas to search the shared apartment.
The search produced gang paraphernalia, a butterfly knife, ammunition, clothing from the robbery, and a sawed-off shotgun located with the child’s assistance.
Fernandez moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied the motion, he pleaded nolo contendere to some counts, was convicted on others, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Fernandez's Argument	Government / Rojas Argument	Held
Whether Georgia v. Randolph’s rule (present co-tenant’s on-the-spot refusal defeats another co-tenant’s consent) applies when the objecting co-tenant is absent because police detained/arrested him before the consenting co-tenant permitted the search	Fernandez: Randolph should apply despite his physical absence because he objected while present or because police caused his absence	Court/Govt: Randolph is limited to physically present objectors; lawful detention/arrest that removes the objector does not preserve his on-the-spot objection	Held: Randolph does not apply here; an occupant absent due to lawful detention/arrest can be bound by a co-tenant’s subsequent valid consent to search
Whether an on-the-spot refusal of consent remains indefinitely (or for a reasonable continuing period) such that a later co-tenant’s consent is ineffective	Fernandez: His initial refusal should continue until he withdraws it — preventing later consent by Rojas	Court/Govt: Such a continuing-objection rule is unworkable and contrary to Randolph’s rationale about presence and social expectations; consent by a present consenting occupant should be effective absent a physically present objector	Held: Rejected continuing-objection rule; Randolph is a narrow, presence-based exception and does not create a lasting veto over co-tenant consent

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (consent of one who possesses common authority over premises is valid against absent, nonconsenting person)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (physically present co-tenant’s express refusal to permit a search is dispositive as to him)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (warrantless entry valid where officers reasonably believed consenting person had common authority)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent searches are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement; voluntariness inquiry)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (protective-entry and exigent-circumstances principles; reasonableness standard)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness and limits of motive-based inquiries into police conduct)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (property- and privacy-based limits on government intrusion into the home)