Point of view 1 third party consent hand, a third party will lack common authority if the suspect had a right to exclusive access and control authority to consent to its search”] united states v matlock (1974) 415 us 164, 170 [“[in frazier v cupp.
Third-party consent searches, the supreme court, and the fourth amendment sharon e abrams third-party consent searches 10 in matlock v united states, the third-party consent searches in matlock v united states'3 the rela-12 for example, in matlock, the defendant was not actually present when the police.
A suspect’s spouse, roommate, parent, or other third party may consent to a search of a place or thing owned or controlled by a suspect if the third party has “common authority” over it 2 as the supreme court explained in united states v.
The united states supreme court has, over the years, addressed the issue of third party consent some notable cases from that court that are often cited are the united states v matlock [i] , illinois v. United states, 255 us 313, 317 (1921), the question whether a wife's permission to search the residence in which she lived with her husband could waive his constitutional rights, but more recent authority here clearly indicates that the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared in frazier v. United states v matlock 415 us 164 (1974) in bank robbery prosecution, the united states district court for the western district of wisconsin suppressed certain evidence, and the government appealed the evidence presented by the united states with respect to the voluntary consent of a third party to search.
A united states v matlock 1852 b apparent authority in third party consent searches 1854 c sululnary ofthird party consent searches 1855 d rationales behind third party consent searches 1857 iv two models for consent searches 1859 a veto model 1860 b agency model 1861 v current circuit split 1861 a split decisions 1862 1 third party consent trulups primary party refusal 1862 2. Third party: common authority exists where there is mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes united states v matlock the court distinguished the factual information in randolph from the co-occupant consent rule established in united states v matlock.
The home that a robbery suspect was leasing was searched by the police after obtaining the consent to enter the home from somebody who lived with the suspect synopsis of rule of law voluntary consent was not present because the state did not show actual authority to consent to the search. On november 13, the court will hear oral argument in a fourth amendment case, fernandez v california, on the scope of the third-party consent doctrine fernandez isn’t the most important case on the court’s docket the question presented is narrow and the practical stakes are pretty small. South dakota v opperman428 us 364, 96 s ct 3092, 49 l ed 2d 1000 (1976) knowles v iowa525 us 113, 119 s ct 484, 142 l ed 2d 492 (1998) united states v chadwick433 us 1, 97 s ct 2476, 53 l ed 2d 538 (1977) california v acevedo500 us 565, 111 s ct 1982, 114 l ed 2d 619 (1991) united states v.