Fernandez V. California Case Study

Precedents in the Fernandez V. California

As per the fourth amendment, it is clear that unwarranted search and seizure of individuals and persons get misplaced at law. However, under this amendment, there are provisions that the police acting on voluntary consent from a dweller with an equal authority is possible. However, there are law lapses when it comes to the case Georgia v. Randolph. The Supreme Court if by any chance got an objection from one of the continents on the request by the police to search the apartment the police were wrong in turning to the other continent. This ruling was distinct from other precedents of United States V.Matlock. In Matlock, the decision by Supreme Court held that given the defendant was not available at

California. The organization is a non-profit making organization whose members have vast knowledge in criminal law. The organization was in support of the petitioner against the California state. They were concerned with material facts on the ground with reference to the fourth amendment. They sought to know whether the police had taken prior measures while applying this law during the arrest of Walter Fernandez, who got suspected of robbery. The submission by the organization charged the ruling of the case given that it argued some of the facts correctly precisely. It got found that the case was more of a state trying to infringe a person 's right. It was in bad faith given that the state respects the rule of law. The police intention was to seek consent, where seen as malice given that one party had not approved. The Law enforcers got a warrant but, neglected hence the court was not acting in favor of a criminal but a person whose rights had gotten substantially infringed. During the submission by the amicus curiae it was evident that the police might not have put much interest in arresting the suspect given they did not follow due procedures. However had the suspect been arrested near his premises the case would take another