This blog is presented for informational purposes only, and not as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is intended nor incurred between this law firm and the reader as a result of this blog.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P. A., Attorneys & Counselors, is conveniently headquartered in the Maryland - D.C metropolitan area. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact
us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, or (410) 720-6129.
" We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win."
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is, again, analyzing a 4th Amendment case:
FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA, Docket No. 12-7822, Opinion Below: California Court of Appeals, Argument : November 13, 2013, SCOTUS Term: October 2013.
The Issue is: Whether, under GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S. Ct. 1515,
164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006), a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant's previously stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is a continuing assertion of Fourth Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant.
In their 2006 decision in Georgia v, Randolph, SCOTUS ruled 5 to 3 that the police may not get permission from one co-occupant to enter a home without a warrant when another co-occupant
is present and expressly refuses to consent.
[ For additional information see: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/November 1, 2013/High Court Tackles Another 4th Amendment Case; http://www.scotusblo.com/case-files/Fernandez v. California]
No comments:
Post a Comment