POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Samuel Alito
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
On February 25, 2014, Fernandez v. California was decided. The majority ruled that the
objecting tenant’s authority was non-existent upon his absence from the property. Justice Alito
delivered the opinion, and Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented. As predicted,
Justice Alito brought up Kentucky v. King in his opinion, stating that requiring police to obtain a
warrant when a warrantless search is justified imposes an undue burden on law enforcement
processes. He also, predictably, pointed out that lawful occupants are allowed to invite the police
into a home, citing safety needs and rights of the co-tenants as reason enough (Cornell). Justice
Alito sided with the state of California, as predicted, and a common theme of his opinion was
that extending Randolph would blur the law.
It would not only take away an officer’s discretion, but it would also make the rules of
warrantless searches complicated, reducing officers to a requirement to always get a search
warrant. This ruling effectively extends Georgia v. Randolph. It sends the message to all courts
that police power should not be unduly burdened when police officers are legally conducting
investigations. Extending an individual’s objection past the point of presence blurs the lines of
reasonableness and takes away a common standard for police to follow. Under Fernandez v.
California, the Supreme Court has left the discretion of deciding to obtain a warrant in tricky
situations with the police.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
On february 25, 2014, fernandez v. california was decided. The majority ruled that the objecting tenant"s authority was non-existent upon his absence from the property. Justice alito delivered the opinion, and justices ginsburg, sotomayor, and kagan dissented. Justice alito brought up kentucky v. king in his opinion, stating that requiring police to obtain a warrant when a warrantless search is justified imposes an undue burden on law enforcement processes. He also, predictably, pointed out that lawful occupants are allowed to invite the police into a home, citing safety needs and rights of the co-tenants as reason enough (cornell). Alito sided with the state of california, as predicted, and a common theme of his opinion was that extending randolph would blur the law. It would not only take away an officer"s discretion, but it would also make the rules of warrantless searches complicated, reducing officers to a requirement to always get a search warrant.
