Whether the Fourth Amendment requires the objecting party to be physically present on the premises at the time of the search for the objection to be valid

QUESTION PRESENTED In Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292, 306, 134 S. Ct. 1126, 1136, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (2014), this Court acknowledged that, if “Randolph requires presence on the premises to be searched, there may be cases in which the outer boundary of the premises is disputed” and that the Randolph “Court adopted a rule that applies only when the affected individual is near the premises being searched.” Officers searched a residence over objections Orentha James Pea made from a police car in front of the residence. Officers had placed Mr. Pea in that police car after he exited the residence and before they gained consent to search from Mr. Pea’s estranged wife, while in view of and earshot of Mr. Pea. In the search, officers recovered the firearm and ammunition supporting Mr. Pea’s convictions. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that, “[b]ecause Pea objected to the search of his wife’s residence after he was arrested and placed in a police cruiser, he was not physically present at the residence and was unable to override his estranged wife’s consent.” United States v. Pea, 21-30691, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 21874, at p. 2, 2022 WL 3153800 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2022) (summary calendar) (per curiam) (unpublished). Did the Fifth Circuit err when it found Mr. Pea’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the Randolph/Fernandez exception “applies only when the objector is standing in the door saying ‘stay out’ when officers propose to make a consent search.” Pea, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 21874, at p. 2.