Robinette Case Brief Essay
Robinette
Facts: Defendant was speeding 30 miles over the speed limit in a construction zone. A police officer stopped him, asked for the Defendant’s driver’s license which he produced. The officer ran a computer check which showed that the Def. didn’t have any previous violations. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the car, turned on his video camera mounted on the officer’s vehicle and verbally warned the defendant for speeding, and then returned his license. After returning his license the officer asked the D whether he had any illegal contraband in his car such as drugs or weapons which he denied. police officer asked
Procedure: D was arrested and charged with knowing possession of an illegal controlled substance. US SC affirmed …show more content…
Holding: yes
Reasoning: The court measures reasonableness in an objective basis, examining totality of the circumstances. TOC looks at the officer’s state of mind testing whether, under the circumstances, the officer reasonably believed that the defendant consented to the search voluntarily. When applying the test the court has to abstain the bright line rules and instead must emphasize the fact based reasonableness inquiry.
Rule:
In schneckloth, the argument that voluntary consent could not be valid unless the D knew that he/she had a right to refuse the request to being searched was rejected because the court believes that the gov. does not need to establish the reasonableness of effective consent. Just as it wouldn’t be practical to enforce the consent search the requirement’s details of an effective warning it would also be unreasonable for officers to always inform the people they are detaining that they are able to leave before the consent to search was
Facts: Defendant was speeding 30 miles over the speed limit in a construction zone. A police officer stopped him, asked for the Defendant’s driver’s license which he produced. The officer ran a computer check which showed that the Def. didn’t have any previous violations. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the car, turned on his video camera mounted on the officer’s vehicle and verbally warned the defendant for speeding, and then returned his license. After returning his license the officer asked the D whether he had any illegal contraband in his car such as drugs or weapons which he denied. police officer asked
Procedure: D was arrested and charged with knowing possession of an illegal controlled substance. US SC affirmed …show more content…
Holding: yes
Reasoning: The court measures reasonableness in an objective basis, examining totality of the circumstances. TOC looks at the officer’s state of mind testing whether, under the circumstances, the officer reasonably believed that the defendant consented to the search voluntarily. When applying the test the court has to abstain the bright line rules and instead must emphasize the fact based reasonableness inquiry.
Rule:
In schneckloth, the argument that voluntary consent could not be valid unless the D knew that he/she had a right to refuse the request to being searched was rejected because the court believes that the gov. does not need to establish the reasonableness of effective consent. Just as it wouldn’t be practical to enforce the consent search the requirement’s details of an effective warning it would also be unreasonable for officers to always inform the people they are detaining that they are able to leave before the consent to search was