Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
1973 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Schneckloth v. Bustamonte?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, although knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth Amendment.
Quick Facts Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, Argued October 10, 1972 Decided May 29, 1973 ...
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; 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Holding | |
Consent searches are constitutional, and the government must show that consent existed. However, a defendant, under the Fourth 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 a custodial interrogation. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
Concurrence | Blackmun |
Concurrence | Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist |
Dissent | Douglas |
Dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV |
Close