United States v. Matlock
Significance, Rules Of Evidence Applicable In A Criminal Trial, Police Acting On Their Own, Impact
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)
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
20 February 1974
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.
- 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. Nixon - Significance, Nixon Fights The Subpoena, Nixon Order To Release, Presidential Succession, Further Readings
- United States v. Edwards - Significance, Impact
- United States v. Matlock - Significance
- United States v. Matlock - Rules Of Evidence Applicable In A Criminal Trial
- United States v. Matlock - Police Acting On Their Own
- United States v. Matlock - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias