The Case Between Fernandez And California

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The Fourth 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

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be “used against you in a court of law” (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that the police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States.

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution says, “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.”

“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.” (FindLaw, 2014)

Upon arrival and after all parties were detained and searched for weapons Sergeant Kincaid and I were advised by the victim in this case, Thomas Fitzgerald that the suspect, Duane Fisher had pointed a pistol at him and his daughter, Marrissa Rohrbach and had laid the firearm down on a piece of farm equipment prior to our arrival. At this time I was able to locate a loaded Browning Target Shooting Pistol inside a holster on top of a tractor attachment approximately

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

PD (Tonkinson & Moyer), Pottsville PD, & Frackville PD (Wendy) were already there. We proceeded to Granny's and observed the silver Impala parked in the lot. Officer Moyer & Tonkinson spoke with the clerk who related the female is staying in room 29 and WHITTEN is in room 31. Room 29 was registered to TASSONE (the victim) who later authorized police to enter the room to search for HECKMAN. Before Pottsville PD was able to make contact with TASSONE for permission to search the room I was unable to make contact with anyone at room 29. I then tried room 31 and Marquese WHITTEN eventually opened the door. Another female was observed inside lying on the bed who was identified as Bobby Jo ROHRBACH. Pottsville police Officer asked Marquese on the whereabouts of HECKMAN and he said he had no idea where she was and hasn't seen her. When asked about her being in his vehicle he denied having any knowledge of it and said he has been driving his BMW all day. He said Bobby Jo ROHRBACH doesn't like HECKMAN so she hasn't been around. Pottsville PD requested for consent to check the room for HECKMAN and WHITTED granted permission. While inside a metal grinder with marijuana was observed lying in plain view on top of the table located against the wall to the right after you enter the front door. WHITTED was asked for request to search the room for the pistol, but refused permission stating we were messing with his sleep and said to get a warrant. After leaving the room the female, Bobby Jo ROHRBACH requested police to have her grinder returned to her. She was informed that it would not be returned to her. Before leaving I took custody of the grinder with marijuana and gave it to Officer

Charge: “He did on or about 11/17/2015 Unlawfully and Feloniously Attempt to Take, Steal and Carry away property belonging to Nicholas Riley valued at $200.00 or more with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use thereof, in violation of 18.2-95(II) of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended.”

From what was brought to the Supreme Courts attention the police did everything properly, they knocked on the door loudly and told the tenants they were the police. If they do not do those two things the tenants may not hear them or they may not open the door because they do not know who it is. This is where the situation became exigent because then the tenants inside began running around and obviously destroying evidence. The police then shouted they were going to enter the apartment and busted the door down to get it. The respondent pointed to no evidence supporting his argument that the officers made any sort of demand to enter the apartment, much less a demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. The record was made clear that the officers’ announcement that they were going to enter the apartment was made after the exigency arose, therefore everything that happened was just.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to