United States v. Matlock

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 against the absent, nonconsenting person who shares that authority. Other co-occupants have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common property to be searched.

White questioned why the district court ruled inadmissible Matlock's own out-of-court statements that he and Mrs. Graff were married. White noted that regarding Mrs. Graff's statements to the officers, the rules of evidence applicable in a criminal trial do not apply with full force at hearings to determine admissibility of evidence, known as a suppression hearing. In a proceeding where the judge is considering the admissibility of evidence, the exclusionary rules should not be applicable. The judge should receive the evidence and decide using his judgment and experience whether it should be admitted. White stated that the trial judge should not have excluded Mrs. Graff's statements in this case. No apparent reason existed for the judge to distrust the evidence and to exclude her statements while resolving the issues raised at the suppression hearing. The judge should have admitted her statements at the suppression hearing, even if they would not have been admitted at the criminal trial.

White noted that Mrs. Graff was a witness for Matlock at the suppression hearing. Because she was available for cross examination, the use of hearsay was reduced. At the hearing, she denied that she gave consent to the search or made the statements to the officers that the court excluded. When asked if she and Matlock lived together, she declined to answer on the grounds that she might incriminate herself. Byron stated that given the admissibility of Mrs. Graff's out-of-court statements, the government proved, by the preponderance of the evidence, that her voluntary consent to search the bedroom was sufficient to admit the money as evidence.