United States v. Matlock:   
United States Supreme Court, 1974. 

Statement of the Case: 

Procedure:

      District court suppressed evidence seized by police pursuant to Matlock’s girlfriend’s consent to search a room of a house in which both were cohabitants. The court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s determination

Facts:

        Matlock was indicted in February of 1971 for robbing a FDIC insured bank in Wisconsin. He was arrested in the front yard of his residence. The home was leased from the owner, a Mr. and Mrs. Marshall, and included their daughter Mrs. Gayle Graff, whom Matlock was residing with in a bedroom.

      Though the officer’s were aware at the time of the November arrest of Matlock that he lived there, they did not ask him which room he resided or if he would give them consent to search his room.

      Although denied at the suppression hearing, it was found that Mrs. Graff did consent to the officer’s searching the room in which she and Mr. Matlock cohabitated when she was informed they were looking for money and a gun. The east bedroom of the house was searched and $4995 in cash was discovered in a diaper bag in the only closet in the room.

Issue:

      Whether the evidence presented with respect to the voluntary consent of a third party to search the living quarters of the respondent was legally sufficient meet the consent exception when the party giving consent shared the room but was not of formal familial relations to the D, just being a girlfriend and cohabitant.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed for the government.

Holding:

      The evidence presented with respect to the voluntary consent of a third party to search the living quarters of the respondent was legally sufficient meet the consent exception when the party giving consent shared the room but was not of formal familial relations to the D, just being a girlfriend and cohabitant.

Reasoning:

• The consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid against the absent, non-consenting person with whom that authority is shared.
• Mrs. Graff made out of court statements to the effect that she and Matlock were married and living together in the house.
• The Government sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Graff did in fact give police her consent to search the east bedroom which she shared with Mr. Matlock and, thus, the $4995 should have been admitted in to evidence.
• As a co-inhabitant she could permit police to search their room.

Additional Points: 

• Florida v. Jimeno:  Supreme Court held the “scope of consent” is governed by a standard of “objective reasonableness.”
  • “Objective Reasonableness” Consent Search Scope Test:  “What a reasonable person would have understood was to be searched, based on the exchange between the officer and person giving consent.”
  • May be an entire home, if that consent is understood to be given.