Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Matlock

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 20, 1974

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 3 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  2. Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  3. United States Vs. Ventresca US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
  4. U.S. 164 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Matlock
    Search
  5. U.S. 164 (1974) United States v. Matlock
    Search
  6. post, p. 415 U. S. 188 . MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  7. This Court left open, in Amos v. United
    Search
  8. or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared. In Frazier v. Cupp
    Search
  9. assumed the risk that his cousin would allow someone else to look inside. Ibid. More generally, in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  10. searches in cases like Frazier and Coolidge v. New
    Search
  11. In Brinegar v. United
    Search
  12. on ex parte affidavits containing out-of-court statements of identified and unidentified persons. United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  13. U. S. 102 , 380 U. S. 108 (1965). An arrest and search without a warrant were involved in McCray v. Illinois
    Search
  14. hearsay at respondent's trial either because statements against penal interest are to be excluded under Donnelly v. United
    Search
  15. that her consent, however voluntary, would not bind the respondent with regard to the search of his room. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  16. E.g., United States v. Stone
    Search
  17. United States v. Wixom
    Search
  18. United States v. Airdo
    Search
  19. F.2d 103, 106-107, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 913 (1967). Each of these cases cited with approval United States v. Sferas
    Search
  20. F.2d 69, 74 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Skally v. United
    Search
  21. E.g., United States v. Ellis
    Search
  22. United States v. Cataldo
    Search
  23. Cabey v. Mazurkiewicz
    Search
  24. United States v. Thompson
    Search
  25. Gurleski v. United
    Search
  26. Wright v. United
    Search
  27. Roberts v. United
    Search
  28. United States v. Wilson
    Search
  29. Nelson v. California
    Search
  30. Burge v. United
    Search
  31. E.g., People v. Howard
    Search
  32. People v. Gorg
    Search
  33. People v. Haskell
    Search
  34. People v. Walker
    Search
  35. Cabey v. Rundle
    Search
  36. State v. Cairo
    Search
  37. Burge v. State
    Search
  38. party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, see Chapman v. United
    Search
  39. U. S. 610 (1961) (landlord could not validly consent to the search of a house he had rented to another), Stoner v. California
    Search
  40. proof at suppression hearings should impose no greater burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lego v. Twomey
    Search
  41. when he had the opportunity to do so, even if substantial probable cause existed to justify a search. In Johnson v. United
    Search
  42. Id. at 333 U. S. 13 -14. In Trupiano v. United
    Search
  43. Id. at 334 U. S. 705 . Page 415 U. S. 186 Likewise, in McDonald v. United
    Search
  44. Id. at 335 U. S. 455 -456. Jones v. United
    Search
  45. a search conducted without a warrant can give more authority than a search conducted with a warrant. See United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search
  46. which they may have expected to find and which doubtless would have been specified in a valid warrant, see Coolidge v. New
    Search
  47. license to search all places and for everything in a given place, limited only by their own discretion. See Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  48. For an example of the abuse to which a warrantless search is subject, see Kremen v. United
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Matlock
    Search
  50. of the Court. In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial