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 |
93 S.Ct. 2041 | ||||||
| Argument | Oral argument | ||||||
| Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist | ||||||
| Concurrence | Blackmun | ||||||
| Concurrence | Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist | ||||||
| Dissent | Douglas | ||||||
| Dissent | Brennan | ||||||
| Dissent | Marshall | ||||||
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
Case overview and opinions from Cornell University's Legal Information Institute