INTRODUCTION The case of Fernandez v. California seeks to determine whether Fernandez's constitutional rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement conducted a raid on his home after obtaining the consent of his girlfriend, who was a roommate, when Fernandez was taken into custody and had identified his objections to the search while at the scene. The rights of the persons to the security of their homes and effects, in consequence of unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be dishonored, and no warrant shall be issued, but for probable cause, supported by affirmations or oaths, and principally relating to residence at to be searched and the things or persons to be seized. DECLARATION Appellant Fernandez was accused of committing the crimes of robbery, corporal injury to a cohabitant, possession of a concealed weapon, felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of ammunition. As regards the crime of robbery, a knife was used during the commission of the crime. All the charges, except bodily harm to a domestic partner, were alleged to have been committed in the wake of a street gang and the appellant has served three previous prison sentences. On October 8, 2010, petitioner pleaded no contest to counts 3 through 5, and thus the gang charge was dismissed on those counts. Regarding the crime of robbery, the jury found true both the accusation that Fernandez used a knife to commit the crime and the accusation relating to the gang. On March 11, 2011, Fernandez was sentenced to 14 years. The court imposed a 14-year sentence for the robbery charge, including a 3-year average sentence, plus a 10-year sentence for gang enhancement and... middle of paper... the house does not lose the his right simply because he is absent at the time the outsider obtains permission from a co-tenant. Whether you look at it through the lens of property rights or common sense, the result is the same: one co-tenant's prior objection renders a subsequent invitation by another ineffective. Especially when the objecting tenant has been forcibly removed from the property and the remaining tenant is forced to consent to a search. This case will open the door to increased police abuse and violations of the constitutional rights of the American people. Instead of complying with warrant regulations, police will be given the tools necessary to evade their requests. Under no circumstances should the police be able to carry out a search simply by removing a suspected objector from his home. Therefore, the verdict of the California Court of Appeals should be reversed.