She had an infant in her hands and with the nature of the situation plus the initial occurrences; the officers asked her if they could conduct a safety search(Russell 1). However, Fernandez was quick to object claiming that he knew his rights. The officers brought Fernandez into custody under the suspicion he was behind Roxanne’s assault. After identification as one of the perpetrators from the gang robbery, the police accompanied him to the police station. Later on, one of the officers returned to the premises and obtained Roxanne’s consent to search the apartment(Russell 1). The search brought out new evidence that linked Fernandez to the violent robbery.
In court, Fernandez’s motion to subdue the proof from the second search did not influence his case. The Georgia v. Randolph case chiefly influenced Fernandez’s motion since the summary judgment held that where there is physical presence of co-tenants and one objects the police’s consent while the other agrees; the police have no option but to respect the objection. Justices Alito, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayors and the Chief Justice were against were against any motions filed with Randolph case as the basis hence agreed with the final decision(Russell 1). However, Fernandez has four votes from Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia and Karlin who supported the Randolph summary judgment with the argument that the police officers went against the law by first taking into custody the objecting party and coming back to obtain consent of other co-tenant. Nonetheless, the California Court of Appeal’s affirmations held that Fernandez was not physically present when Roxanne gave consent of the search. Typically, the application of Georgia v. Randolph as advocated for by Jeffrey Fisher (Fernandez’s lawyer) was not rational enough to make any exceptions particularly because one of the opposing justices invoked that his expression only depicted insightful disrespect towards Roxanne who wanted