In the Georgia v. Randolph case, their ruling resulted in favor for the defendant because law enforcement broke the rules of the constitution. In the case Fernandez v. California, the defendant was arrested for domestic abuse; the defendant has no rights at this point and the other occupant giving access to the home is completely legal.
The decisions were both consistent because they both came to a conclusion that was reviewed by judges and the fourth amendment rules and made the decision fairly based on each scenario. I do think things like illegal drugs, illegally owned weapons, etc. should be taken off the streets, but law enforcement should do it the right way and not cut corners and in these cases, I do feel that for Fernandez v. California this made a positive impact on law enforcement and attorney’s but for the Georgia v. Randolph this made a negative impact because they did not follow the