Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Supreme Court of the United States
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 Associate Justices William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist
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

Case overview and opinions from Cornell University's Legal Information Institute

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Oral Argument