In the case of Fernandez v. California, the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that police officers can search a residence without a warrant even if one resident refuses to consent but is then lawfully arrested and removed from the scene, as long as another occupant consents. The decision was based on an incident where Los Angeles Police Department officers sought to investigate a violent robbery suspect named Walter Fernandez who refused them entry into his apartment. After arresting him for suspected domestic violence, they returned and received permission from his girlfriend to enter their shared home where they found evidence linking him to the robbery. The court held that Mr. Fernandez's initial objection did not remain valid once he was no longer present at the location.

In the dissenting opinion for Fernandez v. California, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the majority's decision eroded the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. She contended that a co-occupant’s consent to search should not be valid if another resident has previously objected to such action but is no longer present due to police removal. The dissent emphasized that this ruling could potentially incentivize law enforcement officers to remove objecting occupants in order to obtain uncontested consent for searches from remaining residents. They believed it was crucially important for courts to protect individual privacy rights against government intrusion unless there is clear voluntary consent or an established exception applies.