less than 1 minute read

Ohio v. Robinette

Significance, Impact, Further Readings


State of Ohio


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


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

18 November 1996


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

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present