California. The organization is a non-profit organization whose members have extensive knowledge of criminal law. The organization was in support of the petitioner against the state of California. They cared about the hard facts on the ground regarding the Fourth Amendment. It was sought to know whether the police had taken preventive measures in applying this law during the arrest of Walter Fernandez, a robbery suspect. The organization supported the decision of the case as it correctly and accurately argued some facts. It turned out that it was rather a state trying to violate a person's rights. It was in bad faith as the state respects the rule of law. The intention of the police was to ask for consent, where seen as malice given that one party had not approved. Law enforcement obtained a warrant but, overlooked, the court acted not in favor of a criminal but of a person whose rights had been substantially violated. During the amicus curiae testimony it was clear that the police might not have had much interest in arresting the suspect since they had not followed due procedures. However, if the suspect had been arrested near his premises, the case would have taken a different turn