Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Merle R. Schneckloth, Superintendent, California Conservation Center
Robert Clyde Bustamonte
The appeals court erred when it held that the state had to prove that the person who gave consent to the police for a search had knowledge of the right to refuse consent.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert R. Granucci
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Stuart P. Tobisman
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
29 May 1973
When the state seeks to justify a warrantless police search based on a person's consent, it need not prove that the person knew that the request to search could be refused.
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969).
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976).
- Yanofsky, Carole J. "Withrow v. Williams: The Supreme Court's Surprising Refusal to Stone Miranda." American University Law Review, October 1994.
- Barrio, Adrian J. "Rethinking Schneckloth v. Bustamonte: Incorporating Obedience Theory Into the Supreme Court's Conception of Voluntary Consent." University of Illinois Law Review, 1997.
- Scott v. Illinois - Significance, An Open-and-shut Case?, Legal Precedents, Interpreting Argersinger, Impact
- Schlesinger v. Holtzman - Significance, A Unique Series Of Events, The Court Defers Action Again, Impact
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte - Significance
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias