Ohio vs. Robinette Case Brief
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
JUDICIAL HISTORY
Robinette unsuccessfully tried to suppress marijuana and MDMA found in his vehicle. He then pleads no contest, but was found guilty. Robinette appealed that the search resulted from an unlawful detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
FACTS
Robinette was stopped for speeding. After running his license through the system, Robinette was issued a verbal warning from the officer. The officer then asked Robinette to step out of the car and if any illegal weapons or drugs was in the vehicle. Robinette responded “no” and consented to the officer’s request to search the vehicle. A small amount of marijuana and a MDMA pill was found in the car. Robinette was then arrested.
ISSUE
Does the Fourth Amendment require that a lawfully seized defendant have to be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search would be considered voluntary?
RULES
According to the Fourth Amendment the officer was justified in asking the suspect to get out of the vehicle.
The Fourth Amendment does not require that the seized defendant be advised he is free to go before his consent is recognized as voluntary.
ANALYSIS
After Robinette was pulled over for speeding and given a warning, technically he was free to leave. But he was asked if his car could be searched and he consented. Robinette claims he would not have consent if he knew he could have declined. So he feels that the officer should have stated something along the lines of “you are free to go” before asking to search the car. Robinette feels this is a violation of his right within the Fourth Amendment. It is then discovered that the Fourth Amendment does not require the suspect to be advised he is free to go before consent is considered voluntary.
CONCLUSION
After looking at the totality of the circumstances it is concluded that if a defendant consents to a search, even without being advised he is free to go, the search will be
JUDICIAL HISTORY
Robinette unsuccessfully tried to suppress marijuana and MDMA found in his vehicle. He then pleads no contest, but was found guilty. Robinette appealed that the search resulted from an unlawful detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
FACTS
Robinette was stopped for speeding. After running his license through the system, Robinette was issued a verbal warning from the officer. The officer then asked Robinette to step out of the car and if any illegal weapons or drugs was in the vehicle. Robinette responded “no” and consented to the officer’s request to search the vehicle. A small amount of marijuana and a MDMA pill was found in the car. Robinette was then arrested.
ISSUE
Does the Fourth Amendment require that a lawfully seized defendant have to be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search would be considered voluntary?
RULES
According to the Fourth Amendment the officer was justified in asking the suspect to get out of the vehicle.
The Fourth Amendment does not require that the seized defendant be advised he is free to go before his consent is recognized as voluntary.
ANALYSIS
After Robinette was pulled over for speeding and given a warning, technically he was free to leave. But he was asked if his car could be searched and he consented. Robinette claims he would not have consent if he knew he could have declined. So he feels that the officer should have stated something along the lines of “you are free to go” before asking to search the car. Robinette feels this is a violation of his right within the Fourth Amendment. It is then discovered that the Fourth Amendment does not require the suspect to be advised he is free to go before consent is considered voluntary.
CONCLUSION
After looking at the totality of the circumstances it is concluded that if a defendant consents to a search, even without being advised he is free to go, the search will be