Fernandez v. California Decision: Bad for the Fourth Amendment?

On Feb. 26, the Supreme Court ruled in Fernandez v. California that law enforcement — without a warrant — may enter a home even after the occupant objects to a search, as long as a co-occupant grants access.

This reversed a 2006 ruling that stated that the denial of consent by one occupant was enough to deny a warrant-less search, barring any other exceptions.

At Texas Law Shield, we share the concerns of many of our members who commented on the case, worried how it might affect what remains of 4th Amendment protections.

On our Facebook page, Member Richard Huntington asked if this ruling came from the state or federal Supreme Court? Ramiro Garza wrote, “There has got to be more to the story. I don’t think the SC would rule like that. It sounds more like the 9th Circuit.”

We clarified this was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Download the decision (in PDF) here.

Several members suggested that the decision might affect just one state, which Member Wes Shier called the “Republik of Kalifornia.”

Texas Law Shield Firearms Program believes there might be a misconception that this is a California-only problem. It is not. This was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling affecting everyone.

Members came up with some creative ways to stop what they view as a breach of the 4th Amendment.

Member Richard Huntington said, “Just make sure everyone in the house agrees to no searches.”

We welcome your thoughts on this erosion of liberty.

Garcinia Cambogia this approximately same means as m many others which use presently. It is also possible to remember about Cambogia Garcinia which very easy to do and requirement big.

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice — it will appear shortly.