Georgia V. Randolph & Fernandez V. California Search & Seizure DQs


After reviewing Georgia v. Randolph and Fernandez v. California, answer the following questions:

  • What defenses, if any, were asserted in these cases?
  • How did these cases impact law enforcement and prosecutors?
  • Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions?
  • Were these decisions consistent with each other? How does consistency in legal decisions positively and negatively impact law-enforcement officers and attorneys?

Review the posts of your fellow learners and respond to at least two. In your response posts, you must do one or more of the following:

  • Ask an analytical question.
  • Offer a suggestion.
  • Elaborate on a particular point.
  • Provide an alternative opinion supported with research.

Be sure to support your initial post and follow-up posts with scholarly examples from the module readings and additional literature where appropriate. You must cite all references according to APA style.


Hello Class

The defense in both of these is that the police violated the defendants 4th amendment rights. The fourth amendment requires probable cause or a search warrant to be issued before the police can enter a persons dwelling.

The results of these cases impacted law enforcement by clearly defining when consent to search is legitimate. A police officer now knows that if there are two residents present when the police arrive with no probable cause and with one person refusing consent they cannot enter.

Do I agree with the Supreme Courts decision? First off I want to say that I love it when the professor gives you permission to speak without references. I think that if you are guilty of breaking a law that the semantics of law should not interfere with you getting caught. I would prefer that if a law is silly we should remove the law. That would in my eyes bring into question if a man or woman should be able to get as high as a kite in their own home if they want to versus whether you can house firearms that you used to commit a robbery. I think that if you have probable cause that someone broke the law you should be able to investigate it. However, Within the wording of the 4th amendment I agree with the court on this issue.

These decisions were consistent with each other. Consistency in legal decisions strengthens the legitimacy of our Judicial system. The has been a narrative lately that current rhetoric from certain political figures is delegitimizing the public trust in our federal institutions. It goes without saying that members of the criminal justice system have to hold themselves to a higher standard. The courts need to respect and follow precedent in order maintain consistency.


What defenses were asserted in these cases? In Randolph’s case “He moved to suppress the evidence in question on the asserted basis that it had been obtained as a result of an illegal search.” Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106 (2006) because his wife had no authority to permit the officers to check his house. In Fernandez’s case, his defense was that it was an illegal search as in what happened to Randolph because Roja could not give consent to search the apartment.

How did these cases impact law enforcement and prosecutors? Both of these cases impacted law enforcement and prosecutors in a couple of ways for one Randolph’s case “(a) the search was solely for evidence, (b) the objecting party was present and made his objection known clearly and directly to the police, (c) the police did not justify their search on grounds of possible evidence destruction, and (d) as far as the record revealed, the police might easily have secured the premises and sought a warrant permitting them to enter; and (3) thus, the totality of the circumstances did not suffice to justify warrantless entry.” Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106 (2006) Which states that if both of the occupants are home and one refuses entry while the other provides entry then the police cannot legally enter the home without a warrant because of this the prosecutor could not allow the evidence to be used in the case. In Fernandez’s case “holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search. In this case, we consider whether Randolph applies [**1130] if the objecting occupant is absent when another occupant consents. Our opinion in Randolph took great pains to emphasize that its holding was limited to situations in which the objecting occupant is physically present.” Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292, 294 (2014) They ruled that if both parties are present then the police need a warrant if one of the occupants are arrested and removed then you do not need a warrant.

Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions? I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. I think that if two people live or share the same space that they both have equal rights and say to that space. Common Property Law states “property that is held by two or more persons with no right of survivorship. Each has an “undivided interest” in the property and all have an equal right to use the property.” (US Legal, Inc, 2016)

Were these decisions consistent with each other? They were not consistent if anything they were almost identical aside from one being a wife and the other being a girlfriend. How does consistency in legal decisions positively and negatively impact law-enforcement officers and attorneys? If they would have been consistent with each other I believe a better understanding of the law would have been a positive result but it would have had a negative impact on law-enforcement officers as doing routine illegal searches and seizures as well as having prosecuting attorneys cases overturned.