According to a Supreme Court ruling made in Washington, the seizure of a 2009 robbery suspect by California authorities and the subsequent seizure of evidence at his apartment without a warrant were legal. Walter Fernandez has sought a Supreme Court verdict to suppress the evidence obtained by authorities after police obtained permission from Roxanne Rojas, who was a co-tenant of the apartment, USA Today said.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the ruling that there were two points in the ruling that made the seizure and the search legal. Police took Fernandez into custody when they visited the apartment he shared with Rojas, who was deemed by the police to have been beaten by Fernandez due to obvious physical signs. Police returned to the apartment, wherein Rojas gave them consent to seek evidence pointing to Fernandez' guilt in the 2009 robbery case. Considerable evidence seized from the apartment ultimately led to Fernandez' conviction, USA Today said. Rojas' consent, said Alito, was enough for the police to conduct a search as the absence of the other enables her to make the decision on behalf of all tenants in the apartment.
The court majority also said that invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment could not be applied to Fernandez' case. Their ruling read, "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence. Having beaten Rojas, petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent. The Fourth Amendment does not give him that power."
On the other hand, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw merit in Fernandez's argument. She wrote, "Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate. The specter of domestic abuse hardly necessitates the diminution of the Fourth Amendment rights at stake here."
