U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Voluntary Consent to Search: Must Subject Be Told of Right To Refuse Consent?

NCJ Number
167871
Journal
Crime to Court, Police Officer's Handbook Dated: (February 1997) Pages: complete issue
Author(s)
J C Coleman
Date Published
1997
Length
16 pages
Annotation
These articles explain the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Ohio v. Robinette and its implications for police officers who want to conduct a vehicle search following a traffic stop that occurred for other purposes.
Abstract
The issue in the case was whether the Fourth Amendment requires that lawfully seized defendants be advised that they are free to go before their consent to a vehicle search will be considered voluntary. The case involved an Ohio driver who was stopped for speeding. The police officer later asked Robinette if he could search the car. Robinette consented. The police officer found both marijuana and a pill later determined to be a controlled drug. The Ohio Supreme Court held that police officers in such cases must tell the motorists that they are free to go. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that whether consent is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. A concurring opinion in the case was that a State may by its laws impose greater restrictions on its own police officers than the Fourth Amendment requires. Multiple-choice questions and answers, discussion of police officer interactions with elderly persons, and photographs

Downloads

No download available

Availability