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.[1] 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 later 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, and Fernandez v. California (2014), where the court held when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search.
References
- ^ Kerr, Orin (November 6, 2013). "Fernandez v. California and the problem of third-party consent". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
See also
External links
-
Annuals36
-
Bulbs, Corms & Tubers41
-
Ferns27
-
Fruits3
-
Garden Plants23
-
Grasses26
-
Herb17
-
Insects1
-
Mammals1
-
Midwest Native Plants0
-
Northeast Native Plants112
-
Perennials123
-
Rose1
-
Shrubs47
-
Trees112
-
Tropical Plants53
-
Upland Birds5
-
Vines18
-
Viola Tricolor1
-
Water Gardening & Plants9
-
Waterfowl0
-
Wetland Birds0
-
Wetland Plants4
-
Wildbirds172
-
Wildflowers1
-
Woodland Plants29
Recent Comments