United States v. Matlock

• Article

• Talk

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched.[1] The ruling of the court established the "co-occupant consent rule," which was later explained by _Illinois v. Rodriguez _, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) and distinguished later by _Georgia v. Randolph _ (2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant, and _Fernandez v. California _ (2014), where the court held when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Matlock&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: See also")

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 415

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Matlock&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: References")

1. ↑ Kerr, Orin (November 6, 2013). "Fernandez v. California and the problem of third-party consent" . SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 23, 2014.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Matlock&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: External links")

• Text of United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Matlock&oldid=1351328358 "