Apex Law Service: Fernandez v. California - Another 4th Amendment Issue

Описание: Apex Law Service: Fernandez v. California – Another 4th Amendment Issue.

the explanation below can be found on https://apexlawservice.com/fernandez/

Hi, James Polk here with Apex Law Service. https://ApexLawService.com is our website and we do outsourced paralegal work in the criminal defense arena for Attorneys who hire us to find Clients who need to defend themselves against criminal charges. If you’re a Client and you need to hire an Attorney you can hire us first and then what we do is we do paralegal hours at a lower rate than most Law Firms. We charge $71.25 an hour whereas most Law Firms charge $125 to $280 dollars an hour. The Attorneys charge $300 to $350 an hour depending on if it’s the main Attorney or an Associate Attorney.

Fernandez v. California (2014) is an interesting little case. My synopsis is going to be short, sweet and to the point. A man called the police because he was robbed at gun and/or knife point. The police showed up. A second witness said the alleged perpetrator was inside of an apartment connected to a house in the alley. The police went to the door. A woman answered the door. The police asked to search. Just then Fernandez stepped out of a room and said he refused a search. Fernandez was arrested. The police asked the woman without Fernandez present if they could search the apartment. The woman consented. The police found a gun, a knife, and gang paraphernalia.

Fernandez’s attorney argued that the evidence found should not be admitted into the case. They argued that Fernandez’s refusal to allow a search made the search a violation of the 4th Amendment requirement for a warrant due to his lack of consent. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the search was not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Justice Scalia argued that the search was not a violation of the 4th because of the fact that the woman had the right to allow people onto or off of the property based on the property law of trespass. Justice Thomas argued that the search was not a violation of the 4th because the consent given by the woman itself was valid. The dissent argued that a warrant should have been obtained due to Fernandez’s objection.

We look forward to helping you go through this very touchy situation and we look forward to getting you all the way through and helping you move on with your life out and past this situation. Thank you for tuning in to www.ApexLawService.com.

Regards,

James F. Polk

Senior Administrative Coordinating Paralegal for Apex Law Service

657-234-2232