Case Citator › United States v. Matlock

United States v. Matlock

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courtsin review
82 of 83 flagged citations read · 98.8%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
415 U.S. 164
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
82 of 83
Citing cases (total)
3,648
Treatment dates
1982
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. United States v. Matlock is still in review: 82 of 83 flagged citations were read, and the text of one citing opinion could not be retrieved. The confirmed limitation by United States v. Thevis is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Texas separately retained a more protective consent standard under its state constitution.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3,648 later cases cite United States v. Matlock; 83 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Matlock?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Matlock's preponderance standard for consent findings to confrontation-right waivers and instead required clear and convincing evidence.

    United States v. Michael G. Thevis, Alton Bart Hood, Global Industries, Inc., Anna Jeanette Evans · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Because of the intimate association between the right to confrontation and the accuracy of the fact-finding process, however, we also reject the government’s suggestion that the “preponderance” standard accepted by the Supreme Court in Lego (to judge the voluntariness of a confession) and United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) (to judge whether a warrantless search was consensual) is also adequate to protect confrontation rights.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Matlock and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace