The Supreme Court has long held that police officers may search a jointly occupied residence if one of the occupants consents.  United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).  In 2006 the Court recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search.  Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).  On February 25, 2014 the Court clarified Randolph by ruling that the police can search a home without a warrant, even if one co-tenant objects, as long as, the objecting co-tenant is no longer on the scene and another co-tenant gives consent. Fernandez v. California, --- S.Ct. ---. 

On February 25, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court settled the issue of whether a probationary police trainee who is a member of the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System (OPPRS) is (1) an at-will employee, and (2) entitled to a post-termination hearing.  City of Jenks v. Timothy Stone, 2014 OK 11.

The case involved the termination of a probationary police trainee employed by the City of Jenks. The City of Jenks and the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 146 had an agreement outlining the grievance and arbitration rights of full-time, permanent police officers.  Stone requested a review board hearing under 11 O.S. § 50-123 of the OPPRS and the City denied that request claiming Stone was an at-will employee and not entitled to a review board hearing.  Title  11 O.S. § 50-123 provides, in part: