Byron White

“ The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the judge under Rule 104 (a) . ↑ .
Should the exclusionary law of evidence, "the child of the jury system" in Thayer's phrase, be applied to this hearing before the judge? Sound sense backs the view that it should not, and that the judge should be empowered to hear any relevant evidence, such as affidavits or other reliable hearsay. C. McCormick, Evidence § 53, p. ”

“ Common authority is, of course, not to be implied from the mere property interest a third party has in the property. The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, see Chapman v. ”

“ Openly cohabits and associates with a person he knows is not his spouse under circumstances that imply sexual intercourse. ↑ . Accordingly, we do not reach another major contention of the United States in bringing this case here: that the Government, in any event, had only to satisfy the District Court that the searching officers reasonably believed that Mrs. Graff had sufficient authority over the premises to consent to the search. ”

“ Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 153-154 (1945) , upon which respondent and the Court of Appeals relied, involved the use of hearsay as substantive evidence bearing on the question of Bridges' membership in the Communist Party, a charge upon which a deportation order had been based. In addition to the fact that the use of unsworn, unsigned statements violated the rules of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the evidence was admitted to prove charges which directly jeopardized "the liberty of an individual," id. ”

“ These cases at least make clear that, when the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. ”

“ Howard, 166 Cal.App.2d 638, 651, 334 P.2d 105, 114 (1958) ; People v. Gorg, 45 Cal.2d 776, 783, 291 P.2d 469, 473 (1955) ; People v. Haskell, 41 Ill.2d 25, 28-29, 241 N.E.2d 430, 432 (1968) ; People v. ”