Search for: "C. A. Matlock"
Results 21 - 40
of 60
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2010, 8:44 am
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177 (1974) (referring to the government's burden on a motion to suppress as a preponderance). [read post]
Cal.2: Police can removed defendant and ask for consent from co-tenant; rejecting 9th Cir. authority
4 Aug 2012, 7:09 am
As we have said, Randolph expressly reaffirmed the holdings of Matlock and Rodriguez, noting that “it would needlessly limit the capacity of the police to respond to ostensibly legitimate opportunities in the field if we were to hold that reasonableness required the police to take affirmative steps to find a potentially objecting co-tenant before acting on the permission they had already received. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 6:38 am
See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 172 n.7. [read post]
9 Nov 2008, 11:35 am
See Matlock, supra. [read post]
3 May 2010, 5:13 am
Therefore, we apply the Matlock rule and ask whether King relinquished his privacy in the hard drive with respect to Larkin. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 1:37 pm
It is important to note that the majority opinion in Randolph declared the continued viability of Matlock and Rodriguez. [read post]
13 May 2007, 8:49 am
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172, n.4, 94 S. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 5:55 am
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 185 (1974) (internal citations and quotations omitted). [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 6:08 am
March 18, 2009)*: [T]he defendant's absence (which was not procured by the agents who obtained Samir Megahed's consent or by the agents who conducted the search) renders inapplicable the narrow exception to Matlock and Rodriguez recognized in Georgia v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 5:14 am
Code § 2241(c) (his trip from Pennsylvania to New York and back). [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 6:45 am
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974); United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 9:45 pm
Morales (1988) 861 F.2d 396, 399 [“Under the Matlock test, a driver of a vehicle has the authority to consent to a search of that vehicle. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 1:44 pm
See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 172 n.7 .... [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 5:47 am
See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n.7 ("[i]t is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit inspection in his own right. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 11:34 am
., Randolph, 547 U.S. at 110 (quoting Matlock, 415 at 171, n.7) ("[T]hird-party consent ... rests [] on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched. [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 5:12 am
See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n.7 (noting that, when individuals enter a co-occupant relationship, they "assume the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched"). [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 8:24 am
September 25, 2007): The appellant's facts fall in the middle ground between Matlock and Randolph--neither co-tenant was present at the residence but both were asked for consent to search, resulting in competing consents. [read post]
10 Feb 2007, 8:17 am
"[O]nce defendant was legally off the premises, his case was like Matlock and not like Randolph and his consent was not necessary for a reasonable search of his residence. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 7:36 am
Parker, 469 F.3d 1074, 1078 (7th Cir. 2006) ("Consent to warrantless search by someone with common authority over premises is valid as against an absent, non-consenting person with whom the authority is shared" even when the police are responsible for absence of non-consenting person) (citing Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 12:27 pm
The court noted the Matlock principle that a tenant who chooses to share premises necessarily relinquishes some privacy and risks that in his absence a cotenant may allow authorities to search--even if he preemptively objected. [read post]
