United States v. Matlock
Encyclopedia
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. 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 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.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
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. The ruling of the court established the "co-occupant consent rule," which was later explained by Illinois v. Rodriguez
Illinois v. Rodriguez
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 , is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises...
, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) and distinguished by Georgia v. Randolph
Georgia v. Randolph
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 , is a case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant...
(2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant.