Ohio v. Robinette
Significance, Impact, Further Readings
Petitioner
State of Ohio
Respondent
Robert D. Robinette
Petitioner's Claim
Provisions of the Fourth Amendment do not require police officers to warn motorists that they are "free to go" at the end of traffic stop.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Carley J. Ingram
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James D. Ruppert
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 November 1996
Decision
The respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when, after being lawfully stopped, the motorist consented to search even though the police officer failed to advise that motorist had the right to refuse consent, since initial detention was finished. The U.S. Constitution did not specifically stipulate that such searches and seizures were unreasonable.
Related Cases
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
Additional topics
- Oklahoma City Bombing Trials: 1997-98 - Oklahoma Grand Jury, Colorado Venue, Mcveigh's Trial, Nichols's Trial, Mixed Verdict
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Significance, Background, A Protected Life Interest On Death Row, Safeguarding Against Irresponsible Clemency, Impact
- Ohio v. Robinette - Further Readings
- Ohio v. Robinette - Significance
- Ohio v. Robinette - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present