Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Argued October 10, 1972
Decided May 29, 1973
Full case nameMerle R. Schneckloth, Superintendent, California Conservation Center, Petitioner v. Robert Clyde Bustamonte
Citations412 U.S. 218 (more)
93 S. Ct. 2041; 36 L. Ed. 2d 854
ArgumentOral argument
Holding
Consent searches are constitutional, and the government must show that consent existed. However, a defendant, under the Fourth Amendment, need not necessarily know of his right to object to a consent search. This differentiates the case from Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court held that a defendant must know of his/her rights against self-incrimination in the course of a custodial interrogation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrencePowell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
DissentDouglas
DissentBrennan
DissentMarshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, although knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth Amendment.