Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Supreme Court of the United States 1973
Facts
While on patrol at 2:40 AM, police stopped a car when he observed that one
headlight and license plate light had burned out. Six men were in the
vehicle. Joe Alcala, and respondent Bustamonte were in the front with the
driver, and three men were in back. Driver could not produce a licence, and
only Alcala could. Alcala explained that the car was his brother's. The
officer asked Alcala if he could search the car. Alcala replied "sure, go
ahead." No person was threatened and situation remained cordial. Police
found three checks wadded up in the front seat that had recently been stolen
from a car wash.
Question
What must the prosecution show to prove that consent to a search was
voluntarily given?
Holding
The Court held that consent could be determined by the Totality of the
Circumstances in which the consent was given, and it was not subject to
specific tests, such as whether the person knew that he could refuse a
voluntary search.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that voluntary searches were crucial to the law
enforcement procedures, as they provided police a way to clear a person, or
gain probable cause, under mutually acceptable circumstances. The Court
reasoned that knowledge of the right to refuse a search was an important
factor, but could not be the determining factor of whether consent was
given. The Court ruled that it would be thoroughly impractical to impose a
Miranda-like warning to people from whom the police seek to gain a voluntary
search from, as the atmosphere in such circumstance is unstructured, and
such strict limitations on a voluntary search would not make sense in that
atmosphere.