Ohio v. Robinette
Significance, Impact, Further Readings
State of Ohio
Robert D. Robinette
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
John Paul Stevens
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.
- 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).
- 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