Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Matlock

• 1973 • 415 U.S. 164 • Burger Court
In the United States v. Matlock case of 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search is valid if consent is given by a third party who possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. The defendant, Jerry Alden Matlock, was arrested at his residence and subsequently indicted for bank robbery. While he was in custody in a squad car nearby but not asked for permission, law enforcement officers obtained voluntary consent...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1973
Docket: 72-1355
415 U.S. 164
94 S. Ct. 988
39 L. Ed. 2d 242
1974 U.S. LEXIS 8
Argued: Dec 10, 1973

United States v. Matlock

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Matlock case of 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search is valid if consent is given by a third party who possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. The defendant, Jerry Alden Matlock, was arrested at his residence and subsequently indicted for bank robbery. While he was in custody in a squad car nearby but not asked for permission, law enforcement officers obtained voluntary consent from Mrs. Graff (a woman with whom he shared an apartment) to search their shared bedroom where they found money which matched that stolen from the bank. At trial, Mr. Matlock argued this evidence should have been suppressed as it had been obtained through an unconstitutional search since only Mrs.Graff's consent had been secured while he himself hadn't provided any such approval nor was present during her giving of said approval . However,the Supreme Court upheld its admissibility stating that when two people have equal use and control of property then either can give effective consent to its search.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Matlock, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a third party to consent to a search of shared premises violated Fourth Amendment rights. He contended that this ruling effectively allowed police officers to bypass obtaining warrants by simply seeking permission from any individual who happened to be present at the time of their arrival, regardless of whether or not they had authority over all areas within those premises. This could lead, he warned, to situations where individuals with minimal connections and little actual control over property could grant law enforcement access without proper authorization from those with legitimate interests in maintaining privacy. Furthermore, Douglas criticized the majority’s reliance on “common authority” as an overly broad concept which failed adequately protect constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: Feb 20, 1974
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms