Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Argument	Oral 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
Majority	Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
Concurrence	Blackmun
Concurrence	Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Dissent	Douglas
Dissent	Brennan
Dissent	Marshall
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.