WALTER FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA
Supreme Court of the United States, Alito, Filed Feb. 25, 2014,
Consent- Where one occupant denies police consent to search a premises, another may grant consent if the first is not present. This is so even where the objecting occupant has been removed by police due to lawful detention or arrest.

Other notes from the case:
– Police officers may search jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents
– Consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search
– Regarding consent, an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason
– “Consent searches are part of the standard investigatory techniques of law enforcement agencies” and are “a constitutionally permissible and wholly legitimate aspect of effective police activity.”
– Outside of limited contexts (such as an inventory search or administrative inspection), an officer’s motive does not invalidate objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment.

Quotes regarding consent:
– “It would be unreasonable—indeed, absurd—to require police officers to obtain a warrant when the sole owner or occupant of a house or apartment voluntarily consents to a search.”
– “Where the owner believes that he or she is under suspicion, the owner may want the police to search the premises so that their suspicions are dispelled.”

Longer Quotes from the Case on Consent to Search:

The owner of a home has a right to allow others to enter and examine the premises, and there is no reason why the owner should not be permitted to extend this same privilege to police officers if that is the owner’s choice. Where the owner believes that he or she is under suspicion, the owner may want the police to search the premises so that their suspicions are dispelled.
This may be particularly important where the owner has a strong interest in the apprehension of the perpetrator of a crime and believes that the suspicions of the police are deflecting the course of their investigation. An owner may want the police to search even where they lack probable cause, and if a warrant were always required,this could not be done. And even where the police could establish probable cause, requiring a warrant despite the owner’s consent would needlessly inconvenience everyone involved—not only the officers and the magistrate but also the occupant of the premises,who would generally either be compelled or would feel a need to stay until the search was completed.

On why consent searches may be preferable to search warrants:

Petitioner argues strenuously that his expansive interpretation of Randolph would not hamper law enforcement because in most cases where officers have probable cause to arrest a physically present objector they also have probable cause to search the premises that the objector does not want them to enter, see Brief for Petitioner 20–23, but this argument misunderstands the constitutional status of consent searches. A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant. Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search, the magistrate who must review the warrant application, and the party willing to give consent. When a warrantless search is justified, requiring the police to obtain a warrant may “unjustifiably interfer[e] with legitimate law enforcement strategies.” King, 563 U.S.,at ___(slip op., at 13).
Such a requirement may also impose an unmerited burden on the person who consents to an immediate search, since the warrant application procedure entails delay. Putting the exception the Court adopted in Randolph to one side, the lawful occupant of a house or apartment should have the right to invite the police to enter the dwelling and conduct a search. Any other rule would trample on the rights of the occupant who is willing to consent.
Putting the exception the Court adopted in Randolph to one side, the lawful occupant of a house or apartment should have the right to invite the police to enter the dwelling and conduct a search. Any other rule would trample on the rights of the occupant who is willing to consent. Such an occupant may want the police to search in order to dispel “suspicion raised by sharing quarters with a criminal.” 547 U. S., at 116; see also
Schneckloth, 412 U. S., at 243 (evidence obtained pursuant to a consent search “may insure that a wholly innocent person is not wrongly charged with a criminal offense”).
And an occupant may want the police to conduct a thorough search so that any dangerous contraband can be found and removed. In this case, for example, the search resulted in the discovery and removal of a sawed-off shot- gun to which Rojas’ 4-year-old son had access.