United States v. Matlock - Significance, Rules Of Evidence Applicable In A Criminal Trial, Police Acting On Their Own, Impact

william court petitioner third

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

William Matlock

Petitioner's Claim

That out-of-court statements should not have been excluded from evidence at a suppression hearing and that a third party who had common authority over a premises may give permission for a search.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Wallace, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Donald S. Eisenberg

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

20 February 1974

Decision

A third party with control over a property may give permission for a warrantless search of the property. Also, no automatic rule exists against receiving hearsay evidence during a suppression hearing.

Related Cases

Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948).
McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948).
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969).
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).

United States v. Matlock - Significance

The decision clarified when a third party can give permission for a warrantless search of a property. When a prosecutor seeks to justify a warrantless search by showing voluntary consent was given, that consent is not limited to the defendant, but can be given by a third party who had common authority over the premises. On 12 November 1970, William Matlock was arrested, on charges of bank robbery,…

United States v. Matlock - Rules Of Evidence Applicable In A Criminal Trial

Justice White wrote the opinion of the majority. Various state courts and courts of appeal have applied the basic proposition that the voluntary consent of any joint occupant of a residence to search the premises is valid and permits evidence discovered in the search to be used against a co-occupant in a criminal trial. The consent of a person who has common authority over a premises is valid agai…

United States v. Matlock - Police Acting On Their Own

Justice Douglas dissented because he believed that "the absence of a search warrant in this case, where the authorities had opportunity to obtain one, is fatal." He noted that at no time did the officers attempt to get a search warrant. Also, the search of the house was not incidental to the arrest of Matlock. Douglas explained that a search warrant provided judicial intervention as a restraint of…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.