INTRODUCTIONThe case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether Fernandez's constitutional rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement raided his home after obtaining consensus from his girlfriend, who was a roommate when Fernandez was taken into custody at view and had expressed his objections to the search on site. The rights of the people to be secure in their homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and confiscations, shall not be dishonored, nor shall any warrant issue, but on a probable basis, supported by affirmation or oath , and mainly connecting the residence to be searched and the things or people to be seized. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner Fernandez was charged with committing the crimes of robbery, bodily injury to a co-inhabitant, possession of a weapon concealed, felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of ammunition. In relation to the offense of theft, it was alleged that a knife was used in the commission of the offence. On all counts except bodily injury to a cohabitant, the crimes were found to have been committed as a farewell to a street gang and the petitioner had already served three prison sentences. prison. On October 8, 2010, petitioner pleaded no contest to counts 3 through 5, and then the gang charge was dismissed as to those counts. With respect to the robbery offense, the jury found true both the allegation that Fernandez used a knife in the commission of the crime and the gang allegation. On March 11, 2011, Fernandez was sentenced to 14 years. The court imposed a 14-year sentence for robbery, a 3-year mid-term sentence, plus a 10-year sentence for gang enrichment and...... middle of paper ...... the house does not lose his right simply because he is absent at the time the foreigner obtains authorization from a roommate. Whether from the perspective of real estate law or common sense, the result is the same: the prior objection of one roommate renders a subsequent invitation from another ineffective. Especially when the opposing tenant has been forcibly removed from the property and the remaining tenant is forced to consent to a search. This case risks opening the door to increased police abuse and violations of the constitutional rights of the American people. Instead of complying with warrant regulations, police will have the tools to evade their requirements. Under no circumstances should the police be able to carry out a search simply by removing an objecting suspect from his or her home. The California Court of Appeal's verdict should therefore be overturned..