''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.
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
''Fernandez v. California'', 571 U.S. 292 (2014), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that explored the limits of '' Georgia v. Randolph'', a 2006 case that held that consent to search a dwelling is invalid in the presence of an objecting co-resident. ...
'' (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.
See also
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 415
References
External links
*
United States Fourth Amendment case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
1974 in United States case law
{{SCOTUS-case-stub