Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/20/1974

United States v. Matlock

Citations

  • 415 U.S. 164
  • 94 S. Ct. 988
  • 39 L. Ed. 2d 242
  • 1974 U.S. LEXIS 8

About this case

United States v. Matlock

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")

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")

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

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that officers may not lawfully search a house if one resident consents but another resident who is present refuses consent
  • noting that “the controlling burden of proof at suppression hearings should impose no greater burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence”
  • unmarried person living together in same bedroom with juvenile may consent to search of bedroom
  • phrases issue in terms of whether evidence of third-party's voluntary consent was \legally sufficient to render the seized materials admissible\ against defendant
  • consent of one possessing common authority over effects is valid as against an absent, nonconsenting person with whom authority is shared
  • the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent nonconsenting person with whom the authority is shared

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,510 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Matlock

6 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.