Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
|Schneckloth v. Bustamonte|
|Argued October 10, 1972|
Decided May 29, 1973
|Full case name||Merle R. Schneckloth, Superintendent, California Conservation Center, Petitioner v. Robert Clyde Bustamonte|
|Citations||412 U.S. 218 (more)|
93 S. Ct. 2041; 36 L. Ed. 2d 854
|Consent searches are constitutional, and that the government must show that consent existed. However, a defendant, under the Fifth 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 an interrogation.|
|Plurality||Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist|
|Concurrence||Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist|
|United States Constitution, Amendment IV|
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the high court ruled that in a case involving a consent search, while knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the state does not need to prove that the one who is giving permission to search knows that he has a right to withhold his consent under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
While on routine patrol in Sunnyvale, California, at approximately 2:40 in the morning, Police Officer James Rand stopped an automobile when he observed that one headlight and its license plate light were burned out. Six men were in the vehicle. Joe Alcala and the respondent, Robert Bustamonte, were in the front seat with Joe Gonzales, the driver. Three older men were seated in the rear. When, in response to the policeman's question, Gonzales could not produce a driver's license, Officer Rand asked if any of the other five had any evidence of identification. Only Alcala produced a license, and he explained that the car was his brother's. After the six occupants had stepped out of the car at the officer's request, and after two additional policemen had arrived, Officer Rand asked Alcala if he could search the car. Alcala replied, "Sure, go ahead." Prior to the search, no one was threatened with arrest, and, according to Officer Rand's uncontradicted testimony, it "was all very congenial at this time." Gonzales testified that Alcala actually helped in the search of the car by opening the trunk and glove compartment. In Gonzales' words:
"[T]he police officer asked Joe [Alcala], he goes, 'Does the trunk open?' And Joe said, 'Yes.' He went to the car and got the keys and opened up the trunk."
Wadded up under the left rear seat, the police officers found three checks that had previously been stolen from a car wash. The checks were later linked to Bustamonte (defendant), one of the six passengers riding in the car. The trial judge denied Bustamonte’s motion to suppress, and the checks in question were admitted in evidence at Bustamonte's trial. 
The court held that consent searches are constitutional, and that the government must show that consent existed. However, a defendant under the Fifth 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 an interrogation.