United States v. Matlock
- Decided
- February 20, 1974
- Docket
- 72-1355
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,648 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress” — People v. Patterson (2000)
- holding that there is “no automatic rule against the reception of hearsay evidence in [suppression] proceedings” — United States v. Joshua Brent Gray, United States of America v. Terrence A. Askew (2007)
- holding that consent to warrantless search by person with common authority over residential premises was valid against nonconsenting person who shared that common authority — State v. Yule (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
MR. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), the Court reaffirmed the principle that the search of property, without warrant and without probable cause, [*166] but with proper consent voluntarily given, is valid under the Fourth Amendment. The question now before us is whether the evidence presented by the United States with respect to the voluntary consent of a third party to search the living quarters of the respondent was legally sufficient to render the seized materials admissible in evidence at the respondent's criminal trial.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.