Social Feeds

Be sure to Like and Follow FEDagent on Facebook for exclusive content and news stories affecting your career as federal law enforcement.


Subscribe to our newsletter. It's FREE!
Read our privacy policy

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments to Decide Whether a Defendant Must Be Present and Objecting When Police Ask a Co-tenant for Consent to Search Premises

Written by FEDagent on . Posted in Case Law Update

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fernandez v. California to decide “whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant's previously-stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is a continuing assertion of 4th Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant.” 

In this case, on the early afternoon of October 12, 2009, petitioner-appellant, Walter Fernandez, approached the victim, Lopez on the street, issued a gang challenge and tried to stab Lopez. When Lopez resisted, Fernandez called out to accomplices, who helped Fernandez subdue and rob an unarmed Lopez. Fernandez fled the scene into a nearby apartment that he shared with his girlfriend, Rojas, and where pursuing police officers heard a verbal altercation. Police then approached the residence and a bloodied Rojas opened the door for the investigating officers. Police believed they had encountered an ongoing domestic violence incident. Fernandez then objected to police entry into his shared apartment. 

Upon detaining Fernandez, the officers discovered that he matched the robbery suspect’s description. After Lopez identified petitioner as the robber, the police arrested him. With Fernandez either in the squad car or en route to the police department, the police returned to the apartment after an hour, where they obtained Rojas’s oral and written consent to search the residence. The police then discovered an illegal firearm and ammunition, among other items. 

Before trial, Fernandez filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search of his apartment following his arrest, seeking to exclude various items including a 20–gauge shotgun, ammunition and a knife. The motion to suppress was denied. A jury found Fernandez guilty of second degree robbery of Lopez, and inflicting corporal injury on his cohabitant, Rojas. The trial court imposed a fourteen year sentence. 

Before the Court of Appeals, it held that there was no showing that the arrest was a pretext for the search and Fernandez’s prior objection to police entry was overridden by his absence from the apartment and Rojas’s consent. Fernandez argued on appeal that the Fourth Amendment did not allow the police to obtain valid consent to enter his home by removing the objecting tenant (Fernandez) from the scene against his will and then seeking permission from the other tenant shortly thereafter. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim, holding Rojas’s consent to a search of the apartment she shared with petitioner was valid and justified the officers’ actions. 

Fernandez then petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, which was granted. The Supreme Court will hear the oral argument on Wednesday, November 13, 2013. The case is Fernandez v. California, No.12-7822. Read the decision at the Court of Appeals. 

This case law update was written by Maria N. Coleman, associate attorney at the law firm Shaw Bransford & Roth, PC.  

Contest Corner

Win A Free Full Conference Pass to GovSec 2014

Want to win a FREE ticket to the nation's premiere government security, law enforcement and homeland security expo and conference?

GovSec 2014 is the only event that brings together everything you need to be ready when it counts. This year's conference runs from May 13-15 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington DC.



Justice Department Announces First Ever Successful Extradition on Antitrust Charge

Last week the Justice Department announced the first ever successfully litigated extradition on an antitrust charge.

Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national, was extradited from Germany on a charge of participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids, fixing prices and allocating market shares for sales of marine hose sold in the United States and elsewhere, according to the Justice Department press release.

Pisciotti arrived last week in the Southern District of Florida, in Miami, and appeared before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Ft. Lauderdale.


GEICO's Good Stuff

OPM Retirement Backlog Shrank in March

GEICO’s Good Stuff is a column series highlighting great stuff happening in the federal community.

The number of backlogged retirement claims at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) fell in March, as the agency was able to process more claims than it took in.

According to new figures from OPM, the backlog of unprocessed claims stood at 18,573 at the end of March, down from 23,554 at the end of February.

The agency expects the overall claims backlog to trend downward over the next few months, but still has thousands of unprocessed claims pending after sequestration and cuts to overtime slowed the process last year.


Case Law Update

Federal Employee Kills Spouse and Self Leading to Inheritance Dispute at MSPB

A federal employee covered under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”) designated his wife as his only beneficiary for any contributions to his retirement account that were payable at his death. The employee and his wife did not have children together, but both had adult children from previous relationships. On October 15, 2011, the employee killed his wife and then, apparently, took his own life as well. The employee’s wife’s son, on behalf of her estate, applied for a lump-sum credit based on the employee’ service, but the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denied the application, finding that the employee’s wife predeceased the employee, meaning that because she died before the employee, she could not come into possession (as a beneficiary) of any contributions to his retirement account payable at death. OPM found that the employee’s children, rather than the employee’s wife’s children, were the beneficiaries of the lump-sum benefit. The wife’s estate appealed to the MSPB, and an MSPB administrative judge applied Virginia’s Slayer Statute to find that the employee, because he was the “slayer,” legally predeceased his wife, and therefore the wife’s estate was entitled to the lump-sum benefit. OPM petitioned the full Board for review, and on April 1, 2014, the Board reversed the initial decision and affirmed OPM’s final decision denying the application.