Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Argued October 10, 1972
Decided May 29, 1973
Full case name Merle R. SCHNECKLOTH, Superintendent, California Conservation Center, Petitioner v. Robert Clyde BUSTAMONTE
Citations

412 U.S. 218 (more)

93 S.Ct. 2041
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Consent searches are constitutional, and that the government must show that consent existed. However, a defendant, under the Fifth Amendment, need not necessarily know of his right to object to a consent search. This differentiates the case from Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court held that a defendant must know of his/her rights against self-incrimination in the course of an interrogation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Case opinions
Plurality Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist
Concurrence Blackmun
Concurrence Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Dissent Douglas
Dissent Brennan
Dissent Marshall
Laws applied
United States Constitution, Amendment IV

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the high court ruled that in a case involving a consent search, while knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the state does not need to prove that the one who is giving permission to search knows that he has a right to withhold his consent under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Background

A vehicle containing six individuals was pulled over for a broken headlight and license plate light. The driver and three passengers were unable to produce a drivers license. Alcala, a fourth passenger, was the brother of the vehicle's owner and was able to produce a drivers license. Alcala consented to a search of the vehicle and three stolen checks were recovered as a result.

Holding

The court held that consent searches are constitutional, and that the government must show that consent existed. However, a defendant under the Fifth Amendment need not necessarily know of his right to object to a consent search. This differentiates the case from Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court held that a defendant must know of his/her rights against self-incrimination in the course of an interrogation.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 7/29/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.