Rule of Law
When figuring out if a search was voluntary, you don’t have to think about whether or not the person knew what his rights were. Instead, you should think about whether or not the overall situation made it seem like the person was giving free consent to the search.
Facts of the Case
An officer stopped a speeding car. The car had six men, including Robert Clyde Bustamonte (defendant). The officer who stopped the car asked all six men inside to step out. When two more officers arrived, he asked the owner’s brother for permission to search the car. The officer found three stolen checks in Bustamonte’s car.
Even though the defendant objected, the checks were used as proof in a California state court where the defendant was being charged with having checks intending to defraud.
The state trial court allowed the checks to be used as evidence over Bustamonte’s objection, and he was convicted guilty. Bustamonte requested a writ of habeas corpus from the federal district court, but the court denied his request.
The district court’s decision was reversed and thrown out by the federal appeals court. To prove that the consent was voluntary, the prosecution must show that the consenting party was aware of his right to refuse. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
Does the state have to show that the person who permitted the search knew he could have said no?
Holding and Conclusion
No.
The court disagreed that establishing knowledge of the option to decline consent required establishing “voluntary” consent. Instead, the court decided that the only way to determine individual consent was to consider all the relevant factors. The court’s adherence to the traditional understanding of voluntariness meant that effective permission to a search did not require evidence of knowledge of a right to object.
The court held that 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.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court ruled that the prosecution must demonstrate that consent was voluntary and not the consequence of any persuasion or distress in light of all the circumstances. Although evidence that a person was aware of their right to refuse consent is relevant, it is not necessary to establish that a given consent was freely given.
Rather, the court determined that individual consent could only be ascertained through a comprehensive analysis of all the circumstances. The court adhered to the traditional definition of voluntariness, which did not require proof of knowledge of a right to refuse as a prerequisite for effective consent to a search.
When consent is the basis for a search, the Fourth Amendment requires that the consent be voluntary and that voluntariness is determined by analyzing all relevant facts.
Relevant FAQs of this case
Was this case brief helpful?