skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 167871 Find in a Library
Title: Voluntary Consent to Search: Must Subject Be Told of Right To Refuse Consent?
Journal: Crime to Court, Police Officer's Handbook  Dated:(February 1997)  Pages:complete issue
Author(s): J C Coleman
Date Published: 1997
Page Count: 16
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
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
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Consent search; Ohio; Police discretion; Search and seizure laws; US Supreme Court decisions; Vehicle searches
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.