Illinois v. Rodriguez
- Decided
- June 21, 1990
- Docket
- 88-2018
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,581 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the fourth amendment is not violated if police officers reasonably believe that they have consent to enter the premises — United States v. Mario De Leon-Reyna (1991)
- holding that the consent to search given by a third party was valid where the defendant owner had abandoned his ownership interest — State v. Caniglia (1993)
- holding that the police may rely on consent given by someone who is reasonably believed to have authority over the premises — United States v. Floyd Bruce (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
[*179] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974), this Court reaffirmed that a warrantless entry and search by law enforcement officers does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of “unreasonable searches and seizures” if the officers have obtained the consent of a third party who possesses common authority over the premises. The present case presents an issue we expressly reserved in Matlock, see id., at 177, n. 14: Whether a warrantless entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not do so.
I
Cite this
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)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.