Disclosure: Kevin Russell, of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: The Court’s decision in Georgia v. Randolph, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient to authorize police to search a premises if another occupant is present and objects to the search, does not apply when an occupant provides consent well after the objecting occupant has been removed from the premises.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 25, 2014. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|Dec 17 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 22, 2013)|
|Jan 2 2013||Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.|
|Jan 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.|
|Feb 4 2013||Response Requested . (Due March 6, 2013)|
|Feb 28 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 5, 2013.|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.|
|Apr 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jun 7 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Walter Fernandez.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 31, 2013.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2013.|
|Jun 25 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.|
|Jun 27 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Gerald P. Peters, Esquire, of Thousand Oaks, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Jul 31 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 31 2013||Brief of petitioner Walter Fernandez filed.|
|Aug 7 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 13, 2013|
|Sep 19 2013||Record received from Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District.(1 box)|
|Sep 25 2013||Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 21 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 25 2013||Reply of petitioner Walter Fernandez filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 13 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Louis W. Karlin, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, Cal.; and Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Feb 25 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 31 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Mar 31 2014||Record received from Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District has been returned.|
Disclosure: Kevin Russell, of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Issue: Whether, under Georgia v. Randolph, 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.