Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1974

United States v. Matlock

415 U.S. 164 | 94 S. Ct. 988 | 39 L. Ed. 2d 242 | 1974 U.S. LEXIS 8

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that a co-occupant with common authority may consent to a search of shared premises, and that reliable hearsay may be considered when a judge decides that preliminary suppression question.

Background

Federal officers arrested William Matlock in the yard outside a Wisconsin home where he lived with members of the Marshall family, including Gayle Graff. Without asking Matlock for consent or obtaining a warrant, officers asked Graff whether they could search the house for money and a gun. The District Court found that Graff voluntarily consented and stated that she and Matlock jointly occupied the east upstairs bedroom. In that room, officers found $4,995 in a diaper bag in the closet.

The District Court nevertheless suppressed the money. It held that the Government had to prove both that officers reasonably believed Graff had authority to consent and that she actually had such authority. Although the court found the officers' belief reasonable, it excluded as hearsay Graff's statements about joint occupancy and excluded Matlock's and Graff's statements that they were husband and wife. Without those statements, the court found insufficient proof that Graff jointly occupied the bedroom. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the proper evidentiary approach.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a co-occupant's voluntary consent can validate a warrantless search against another occupant who did not consent.

Holding

Yes. Voluntary consent from a person with common authority over, or another sufficient relationship to, the premises or effects can authorize a search against an absent, nonconsenting co-occupant.

Reasoning

The Court treated third-party consent as an established Fourth Amendment principle. Its earlier decisions, particularly Frazier v. Cupp, recognized that a person who jointly uses property may permit its inspection, even when the search produces evidence against another joint user.

Common authority is not a technical question of title or property law. It arises from mutual use of property by persons who generally have joint access or control for most purposes. A co-user may consent in that person's own right, and the other user assumes the risk that a co-user will permit a search of the common area.

Thus, if Graff in fact jointly occupied and used the east bedroom with Matlock, her voluntary consent could make the search valid against him. The Court did not decide the Government's alternative argument that an objectively reasonable but mistaken belief in her authority alone would suffice.

Issue #2

Whether the District Court could exclude, as hearsay, Matlock's and Graff's out-of-court statements when deciding at a suppression hearing whether Graff had common authority over the bedroom.

Holding

No. Matlock's own statements were admissible admissions, and the court erred by automatically excluding Graff's statements as hearsay at the suppression hearing.

Reasoning

Matlock's own out-of-court statements that he and Graff were husband and wife were admissible against him. As a party's admissions, they were not barred by the hearsay rule and could support an inference that the two jointly occupied the bedroom.

The ordinary trial rules of evidence do not apply with full force when a judge resolves preliminary questions about the admissibility of evidence. Drawing on decisions involving probable-cause hearings and the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court explained that a judge ordinarily may receive relevant evidence, apart from privileged material, and assign it the weight experience and judgment warrant.

At minimum, there is no automatic prohibition on hearsay at a suppression hearing. Graff's statements were sufficiently reliable to be considered: they were consistent with one another, corroborated by other evidence of the couple's living arrangements and the bedroom's contents, and made against her penal interest because unmarried cohabitation was then criminal in Wisconsin. Graff also testified at the hearing and was available for cross-examination.

Issue #3

Whether the Government's evidence, considered under the proper evidentiary rules, was sufficient to establish Graff's authority to consent.

Holding

The evidence appeared sufficient to establish common authority by a preponderance of the evidence, but the Court remanded for the District Court to make that determination after considering the wrongly excluded evidence.

Reasoning

Once Graff's statements and Matlock's admissions are considered, the record strongly supports joint occupancy: the pair had lived together in Florida and then at the Marshall home; they were seen going upstairs together; the bedroom had a slept-in double bed, men's and women's clothing, and shared furnishings; and Graff said they slept together there regularly.

The Court stated that the Government appeared to have met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, the ordinary ceiling on the burden at a suppression hearing. Rather than make the final factual determination itself, however, it directed the lower courts to remand so the District Court could reconsider the evidence under the correct standard.

Dissents

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas would have affirmed suppression because officers had ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant, yet made no effort to do so. The District Court found no emergency, danger, risk of destruction of evidence, or other exigency, and the search was not incident to Matlock's arrest.

In his view, the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires a neutral magistrate to decide whether police may invade a home and to impose particular limits on the place searched and items seized. Consent from Graff was not an adequate substitute for that prior judicial check, especially because the officers conducted multiple warrantless searches and were left free to range through the house without warrant-imposed limits.

Douglas read the Amendment's history as hostile not only to general warrants but also to unchecked police discretion. Permitting this search, he argued, gave officers authority broader than a warrant would have supplied and diluted the constitutional preference for warrants whenever officers had time to seek one.

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, would have required an additional finding on remand: that Graff knew she had a right to refuse consent. In his view, a person cannot meaningfully waive the Fourth Amendment protection against a warrantless search while wholly unaware that the Constitution permits refusal.

He therefore disagreed with the governing rule from Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, under which knowledge of the right to refuse is a factor in voluntariness but is not a prerequisite to valid consent. Because Graff had not been told she could decline the officers' request, Brennan would not treat her consent as effective without proof that she otherwise knew of that right.