ILLEGAL+SEARCH

=//**Fernandez v. California**// **DECISION: ILLEGAL SEARCH**= Post your response here. At the start of your response, please post your name, in bold lettering. At the end, please insert a line below by clicking the button to the left of the LINK button, which has a blue line going through text.

Fernandez’s argument is very invalid. Fernandez’s girlfriend, Rojas, had a right to say that the officials could search their apartment that they shared, without a warrant. When Rojas gave permission to the officials, Hernandez was not home or present. When Fernandez stepped forward when he heard that the police searched his apartment, he said he didn’t want them there and it was not okay that they searched his apartment. Shortly afterwards the police arrested Fernandez, and Rojas signed an affidavit saying that the police could search the house (Clark, 2013) two of the higher end officials also agreed it was legal to search the apartment (Lemieux, 2013). When the police searched Hernandez’s home they found a shotgun, ammunition, and a knife that was thought to be used in the robbery (The Editorial Board, 2013). When the police knocked on the apartment door, Rojas answered while covered in bruises and blood fro, various parts of her body. The policed didn’t even need a warrant to see what Rojas looked like. A domestic violence case had now been opened up (The Editorial Board, 2013). The domestic violence case didn’t take over the other wrong doings. As you can see this is similar to the Mapp. Vs. Ohio case, but in that case they found obscene books in her house. The police didn’t have a warrant to be in her house either. The authorities had a right to go into Fernandez’s apartment because Rojas had let them in.
 * Kelly Williamson **


 * YINELIA DE LA CRUZ**

The 4th amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Although what were to happen if a roommate takes away that given right, by allowing the police into the shared property after the other roommate clearly stated no. This just so happens to be the dilemma in the case of __Fernandez V. California__. After assaulting a man on October 12, 2009, Walter Fernandez fled back to his shared apartment with his girlfriend, Roxanne Rojas. When police knocked on the door of their apartment, Roxanne opens the door badly beaten with a baby in her arms she was asked if they were allowed to come in. Fernandez then stepped in and stated that he didn’t want them in the apartment. Cops arrest Fernandez and again ask Roxanne if they could come in, she allows them in. Cops find incriminating evidence against Fernadez that links him to the crimes against him. His lawyer argued that the case was only made by the evidence that was unlawfully seized, the state court rejected his appeal saying that once he was gone from the premisses and couldn’t say no. Roxanne, also being on the lease, allowed police in, which makes it legal.

The other cases pertaining the 4th amendment just proves that there are clearly judges lacks a balance between justice and whats legal (LEMIEUX). If it is againest the accused rights, whether they are innocent or not, they have a right to a fair trial. The two lower courts should have easily known it was taken illegally, Fernandez stated he didn’t want them in the apartment. For Fernandez case in both articles state that if there is enough probable cause, then get a warrant. Police would have not had any problems if they would have done everything correctly and gotten a warrant.  “There was probable cause in this case,” Sotomayor [|said] . “Just get a warrant. I don’t know why that’s difficult for police officers to understand” (Clark). That statement made by Sotomayor proves the exact point that police over looked, just to quickly get over the case. Even if Fernandez was gone, he shouldn’t have to be there to watch over his place, no is no (The Editorial Board). No one will agree with the ruling, but proper procedure should have been taken seriously, and not half fast like in the cases mentioned.


 * ___**

 The 4th amendment protects against searches and seizes without a warrant. This amendment applies to everyone. The issue came up with searches and seizes in buildings with roommates. Who would give consent?  Both roommates should give consent. If one is away the police should wait until they come then ask to search the house. Every citizen has the right to have to have a say. If one roommate says no and the other one says yes the police should only go through that roommates things.  In the Mapp v. Ohio case the police asked to search her house and she said no. The police brought a fake warrant and broke into her house. They found innaproperate material in her house. Mapp argued in court that was illegal because the warrant wasn't valid.  In the Fermanadaz v. California case the police came to the couples apartment. The girlfriend answered the door bleeding and bruised. The police asked if they could come in to search the place. Fermanadaz stepped in and said no. The police left then a couple days later came back and arrested Fermanadaz. They asked the girlfriend if they could search the apartment and she said yes. In the apartment they found weapons. That should be illegal. Both roommates should give consent. If one says yes only there stuff should be checked. The 4th amendment applies to everyone.
 * Katie Myers**

The evidence used and obtained to convict Mr. Fernandez was illegally seized. This means that the evidence should not have been used in court. Mr. Fernandez denied the search of his residence. After this, he was arrested and taken into custody. Later that night, police returned to Mr. Fernandez’s residence and asked his girlfriend if they could search the home and look for incriminating evidence, which they did (Clark 2013). Police may search a residence if they obtain the tenant’s consent. If there is more than one tenant, each of the tenant's consent must be obtained. If one objects, the police cannot legally search the residence (Editorial 2013). If local law enforcement wish to search a home for evidence, the police must obtain a legal search warrant signed by a judge (Mapp V. Ohio). A warrant may only be issued if probable cause is found (Lemieux 2013). This means that all of the evidence collected at Mr. Fernandez’s residence is not admissible in court. The lower court’s findings should be overturned.
 * Thomas Evans**


 * Kadashia Ferguson **

 If you live in United State of America then the 4th Amendment applies to you.. The 4th Amendment protects citizens from the police from searching and seizing your property without an warrant. For an example a police heard yelling and screaming from an apartment, so the cops knock on the door and the girlfriend answer the door and the police saw bruises and blood onthe girlfriend. The police asked to come in and the boyfriend came to the door and said “no you can’t come in and shut the door. Police came back later and put the boyfriend in handcuffs and took him to jail and ask the girlfriend if they were allowed to search the house and the girlfriend said yes and the police found weapons. The fact that the police came back and arrested the boyfriend [|__Fernandez__]  was wrong. The <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #434343; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> search was illegal because the boyfriend said no and the police had no search warrant. This article is related to Mapp v. Ohio because the cops assume a lady was hiding a suspect in the basement. So they police first came to Dollree Mapp house and ask if they could came in and she said “no”, so the cops left and then came back broke a window and storm right in and had a fake warrant and arrest Dollree for having porn books in the basement but nonthing about a bomb. So both of these articles are illegal because there were no warrant and the police were violating the 4th Amendment big time.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights.” The police arrested the man, Walter Fernandez, on charges of domestic violence, and he was taken to the police station. An hour later, the police returned to the home and asked the woman, Mr. Fernandez’s girlfriend, if they could enter. She consented, and the subsequent search turned up a shotgun, ammunition and a knife allegedly used in the robbery. Mr. Fernandez received an enhanced sentence of 14 years for the gang-related assault and robbery. He appealed, arguing that the enhancement was based on evidence collected in an unlawful search of his home. The state court rejected his appeal, finding that the police’s warrantless entry was legal because he was no longer there to object. The justices should reaffirm that principle and require police who wish to search a home to get a warrant, even if the only person standing in their way is in a holding cell.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The police had a warrant to search an apartment, but searched the assumed resident a mile away from the apartment after tailing him in a car for several minutes the Court held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because they search the car and not the house. The warrant only covers only the immediate vicinity of the apartment, and there were no exigent circumstances (such as an immediate flight risk or the treat of violence) that would justify the warrantless seizure of items from a person not in the vicinity of the apartment. Even tho the cops had a warrant the police decide to follow him and search the car, which the warrant is only to search his apartment with him there. So the police voilated the 4th Amendment.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">**Chris Snowadzky**

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This case has gone through many phases and steps to get to point where it is now. Now in the Supreme Court they have to decide “a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrant less search or whether a defendant’s previously stated objection, while physically present, to a warrant less search is a continuing assertion of Fourth Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant.” After reading the background information and conducting research with other sources to find more information about the case. The Justice has decided that they disagree with the lower court findings and feel as though the defendant must be there and the evidence found in Fernandez vs California was illegal. The reason of this decision is that there has to be a handle on the amount of power the police force has and that there are no loopholes in the constitution. If this case came to the end and it was still legal to use that evidence then the police force will just become more aggressive with their searches and the people of their own homes will become more vulnerable.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This case is very similar to the Mapp v Ohio case because both of the searches that were executed to find the evidence used in court. In these situations both times the police did not have warrants but they still did the search and used evidence against the accused. Looking back upon this case today many people view that as an illegal search and going against the fourth amendment. There are also two key facts that validate the search being illegal. The first one is how hard is it for the police to get a warrant? There was probable cause so any judge would have signed for the warrant, even <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Justice Sonia Sotomayor agrees that she would have signed the warrant (Clark, 2013). Within the justice system there must be more enforcement on police being required to get a warrant to search a private persons home. The court itself said, that home has “special protection as the center of the private lives of our people (The Editorial Board, 2013).” Finally, the other fact that supports the search being illegal is that the supreme court has already casted a vote that resulted in a 6-3 saying that search violated the fourth amendment and was illegal (Lemieux, 2013). As you can see with these facts, it shows that protecting the American peoples fourth amendment right of having a legal search requiring a warrant must be a necessity for the police force investigating any crime.