re: #3 BishopX

He wasn’t removed, he was placed under arrest for domestic assault. Previous case law said that he was okay to remove someone from a crime scene who refused consent if it was “objectionably reasonable”. Just like pretextual traffic stops, the Supreme Court doesn’t care about subjective arguments.

Further, if a husband beats the crap out of wife, gets arrested, tells the police that they can’t search for a baseball bat or another weapon that was used, the wife can’t give consent to search the house?

As for the consent of the roommate, the facts were in dispute:

Both petitioner and the dissent suggest that Rojas’ consent was coerced. Post, at 9, n. 5 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). But the trial court found otherwise, App. 152, and the correctness of that finding is not before us. In suggesting that Rojas’ consent was coerced, the dissent recites portions of Rojas’ testimony from the suppression hearing that the trial judge appears to have rejected. Ibid. Similarly, the jury plainly did not find Rojas to be credible. At trial, she testified for the defense and told the jury, among other things, that the wounds observed by the officers who came to her door were not inflicted by petitioner but by a woman looking for petitioner during a fight. 208 Cal. App. 4th 100, 109-110, 145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51, 56 (2012). The jury obviously did not believe this testimony because it found petitioner guilty of inflicting corporal injury on her. (Fernandez v. California (slip opinion), fn. 2)

FYI: Neither the trial court nor the California Court of Appeals agreed with the petitioner’s arguments, and the California Supreme Court refused to hear the case.