Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
United States Supreme Court
412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
A police officer made a routine traffic stop for a burnt-out headlight. The officer had no probable cause to search the car and asked for permission to search. The brother of the car’s owner consented to the search. In the vehicle, the officer discovered three stolen checks, which were later linked to Robert Bustamonte (defendant), one of the six passengers riding in the car. Over Bustamonte’s objections, the checks were admitted at Bustamonte’s trial, and he was convicted of theft. The state appellate court upheld the conviction. Bustamonte petitioned the federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied Bustamonte’s petition. The federal appellate court reversed, ruling that a person’s consent to search is invalid unless the person was aware that he could refuse consent. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (Douglas, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.