Rahul Sharma (Editor)

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Argument
  
Oral argument

End date
  
1973

Concurrence
  
Blackmun

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

Plurality
  
Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist

Concurrence
  
Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist

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.

Contents

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.

References

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Wikipedia


Similar Topics