United States v. Matlock

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Criminal Procedure

415 U.S. 164 (1974)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentConsent SearchesThird-Party Consentcommon authorityjoint occupancymutual usejoint access or control

Facts

Matlock was arrested in the yard of a house in Wisconsin where he lived with members of the Marshall family, including Gayle Graff. Officers did not ask Matlock for consent but were admitted into the house by Graff, who voluntarily consented to a search and stated that she and Matlock jointly occupied the east bedroom. The officers searched that bedroom and found $4,995 in cash in a diaper bag in the closet. At the suppression hearing, the lower courts excluded Graff's and Matlock's out-of-court statements about their shared occupancy and then found the remaining evidence insufficient to prove Graff had actual authority to consent.

Issue

Whether the Government's evidence was legally sufficient to show that Gayle Graff's voluntary consent to search the bedroom was valid against Matlock because she possessed common authority over the room. Also, whether the lower courts erred in excluding out-of-court statements at the suppression hearing when deciding that preliminary admissibility question.

Rule

When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by consent, it may prove that permission was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects searched. Common authority rests not on property law, but on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, such that each co-inhabitant has the right to permit inspection in his own right and the others assume the risk that one of them may consent. In suppression proceedings, there is no automatic rule barring hearsay; the judge may consider reliable out-of-court statements in determining admissibility, and the Government's burden is no greater than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Columbus, Ohio arrest Devin Cole outside a duplex where he lives. Inside, Nina Ramos voluntarily tells officers they may search the upstairs bedroom, explaining that she and Devin both sleep there, keep clothes there, and each use the closet and dresser.

If the prosecution relies on Nina's consent to justify the warrantless bedroom search against Devin, which is the strongest argument that the search was valid?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a warrantless search may be justified by voluntary consent from a third party who possesses common authority over the premises. Common authority depends on mutual use and joint access or control for most purposes, not express delegation from the defendant and not mere presence in the house.