Blog Layout

Valid Consent To Search | Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Lawrence Koplow • Jul 11, 2019
Potter Stewart U.S. Supreme Court
Justice POTTER STEWART authored the majority opinion

The United States Supreme Court analyzes the meaning of “voluntary consent” when it comes to search and seizure.

The Constitutional Question

Did the appellate court incorrectly hold that the search of the vehicle was invalid because the state failed to show consent given with knowledge that it could be withheld?

The Legal Answer(s)

 A 6-3 majority opinion reversed the appellate court decision finding:

  • SCOTUS held that whether consent is voluntary can be determined from the totality of the circumstances .
  • It is not necessary to prove that the person who gave consent knew that he had the right to refuse.
  • The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures doesn’t require a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.

In addition, SCOTUS explicitly stated that because the Fourth Amendment claims had no merit, the Court did not address the question of whether claims relating to search and seizure should be available to a prisoner filing a writ of habeas corpus.

The Majority

Potter Stewart U.S. Supreme Court

The Dissent

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Supreme Court

The Facts

Traffic Stop

While on patrol an Officer makes a traffic stop of a vehicle for equipment violations.

People

Six men were inside the vehicle. The driver was Joe Gonzales. Joe Alcala and Robert Bustamonte were passengers in the front seats. The other three men were seated in the rear.

No Driver's License

The driver was unable to produce a driver's license upon request. Only one of the other five passengers had identification. All six men were removed from the vehicle.

Permission to Search

Alcala claimed the vehicle belonged to his brother. Police asked Alcala if they could search the vehicle. Alcala replied, "Sure, go ahead."

Congenial Encounter

Prior to the search, no one was threatened with arrest. As matter of fact, according to testimony the encounter “very congenial” at this point. Alcala even assisted police with the search of the car by opening the trunk and glove compartment.

Stolen Checks Found

Under the left rear seat police found three stolen checks. The checks were later connected to Bustamonte. He was arrested for possessing a check with intent to defraud.

Procedural History

Fourth Amendment Challange

Prior to trial, Bustamonte challenged the legality of vehicle search. He alleged that the consent (given by Alcala) was obtained through coercion . The trial court denied Bustamonte’s motion to suppress, and the checks in question were admitted in evidence at Bustamonte's trial.

Jury Trial

He was convicted by a jury.

Appeals in State Court

The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed the conviction. The California Supreme Court denied review.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

He then filed a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court which was denied. Subsequently, his appeal to the 9th Circuit was also denied.

9th Circuit - Overturns Distict Court's Decision

Subsequently, he sought review by appeal the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They set aside the District Court's order.

The 9th Circuit reasoned that a consent was a waiver of a person’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the State was under an obligation to demonstrate, not only that the consent had been uncoerced, but that it had been given with an understanding that it could be freely and effectively withhold.

The State of California appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This was done by California Prison Superintendent Merle R. Schneckloth (that is why the case is titled Schneckloth v. Bustamonte ). The Supreme Court would eventually overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decsion.

Decision Highlights

The U.S. Supreme Court stated it granted review  “to determine whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require the showing thought necessary by the Court of Appeals.”

Valid Consent is Permissible

A search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible. [p. 222]

Prosecutor Has The Burden

When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given. [p. 222]

The Precise Question

The precise question in this case, then, is what must the prosecution prove to demonstrate that a consent was ‘voluntarily’ given. And upon that question there is a square conflict of views between the state and federal courts that have reviewed the search involved in the case before us. [p. 223]

Confession Case Law - Used As Guidance

Courts have previously determine the ‘voluntariness' of a defendant's confession for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment It is to that body of case law to which the Court turned for initial guidance on the meaning of ‘voluntariness' in the present context. [p. 223–24]

five 5

No Talismanic Definition of Voluntariness

"Those cases yield no talismanic definition of ‘voluntariness,’ mechanically applicable to the host of situations where the question has arisen." [p.224]

six 6

Unconscious or Lacking Capacity

It cannot be taken literally to mean a ‘knowing’ choice. ‘Except where a person is unconscious or drugged or otherwise lacks capacity for conscious choice, all incriminating statements—even those made under brutal treatment—are ‘voluntary’ in the sense of representing a choice of alternatives. [p. 224]

seven 7

Recognizing The Harm of Coerced Confessions

'(I)n cases involving involuntary confessions, this Court enforces the strongly felt attitude of our society that important human values are sacrificed where an agency of the government, in the course of securing a conviction, wrings a confession out of an accused against his will.’ [p. 225]

eight 8

The Ultimate Test

‘The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness. Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.’ [p. 225-226]

Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.

nine 9

Factual Circumstances & Psychological Impact

In all of these cases, the Court determined the factual circumstances surrounding the confession, assessed the psychological impact on the accused, and evaluated the legal significance of how the accused reacted. [p. 226]

ten_1 10

No Single Controlling Criterion

The Court found a significant fact in all of the decisions dealing with the involuntariness of confessions was that none of them turned on the presence or absence of a single controlling criterion ; each reflected a careful scrutiny of all the surrounding circumstances. [p. 226]

eleven-11 11

When There Is No Probable Cause

The court examined scenarios where the police have some evidence of illicit activity, but lack probable cause to arrest or search.   The court noted that a search authorized by a valid consent may be the only means of obtaining important and reliable evidence.

In the present case for example, while the police had reason to stop the car for traffic violations, the State does not contend that there was probable cause to search the vehicle or that the search was incident to a valid arrest of any of the occupants.

twelve-12 12

Consent Must Not Be Coerced

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a consent not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting ‘consent’ would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed. [p. 228]

thirteen-13 13

Compared to Miranda Rights

The Court found under the Fourth Amendment the government is not required to inform a person his or her right to object to a consent search. This differs from Miranda Rights. In Miranda v. Arizona the Court held that a person must know of their rights against self-incrimination once in custodial interrogation.

fourteen-14 14

Waiver Approach to Consent Rejected

A ‘waiver’ approach to consent searches would be thoroughly inconsistent with our decisions that have approved ‘third party consents.’ [p. 245]

fifteen-15 15

A Narrow Decision

The Court explicitly stated it's decision was a "narrow one." We hold only that when the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. [p. 248–49]

xxxxxxx

-If the subject knows he or she has a right to refuse, it is a factor to be considered, but that fact is not the sole consideration.

The General Rule

The test to determine if consent to search was voluntary is whether a person knew of his or her right to refuse consent.  Rather, the is whether the totality of circumstances shows that the person was voluntarily consenting to the search.

  • Being advised of your right to refuse to consent is not a prerequisite to consent being deemed voluntary.
  • The practical result being  that police are not required to inform you of you right to refuse their  request to search.
 

Concurring Opinions

The Powell Concurrence

Justice Powell argued that the proper issue was whether Bustamonte "was provided a fair opportunity to raise and have adjudicated the question in state courts." He believed Bustamonte should not have been permitted base his habeas petition on a Fourth Amendment claim [unless he was arguing that the state court had improperly denied him an opportunity to raise the claim. This related to an issues raised in another decision - Kaufman v. United States (1969) ].

The Blackmun Concurrence

Justice Blackmun argued the Court should not have reconsidered its opinion in a precedent-setting case, Kaufman v. United States (1969) , in deciding Bustamonte's case.

Dissenting Opinions

The Brennen Dissent

Justice William O. Douglas dissented, arguing that the Ninth Circuit made the correct decision. Justice William J. Brennan wrote a separate dissent, stating that a person cannot waive their Fourth Amendment rights when he is unaware that his rights would be constitutionally protected if he did not waive those rights.

It wholly escapes me how our citizens can meaningfully be said to have waived something as precious as a constitutional guarantee without ever being aware of its existence. In my view, the Court's conclusion is supported neither by ‘linguistics,’ nor by ‘epistemology,’ nor, indeed, by ‘common sense.’ I respectfully dissent.

Justice Brennen | Dissent | Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, p. 277 (1973)
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Supreme Court

The Marshall Dissent

Justice Marshall argued that the prosecution cannot rely on consent to a search if the person who gave consent did not know he could refuse consent. Put another way, Marshall argued that unless a person knows of their right to refuse to a search, any consent is not voluntary.

Read the opinion HERE

Lawrence Koplow Signature

You Might Also Like:

By Lawrence Koplow 09 Sep, 2020
The reported results of a BAC test in DUI cases appear to provide the answer we are seeking: how much ethanol is in a person’s blood.  However, let’s look at the fine print. The Reported Results A machine called a gas chromatograph is used to measure an alcohol concentration in blood samples.   The measurement, which […] The post Reported Result vs. Complete Result appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 05 Sep, 2020
The appearance of science can become the appearance of truth - even when the junk science is employed. Do we provide enough bandwidth to debunk these unreliable scientific claims? The post A Legal Bandwidth Problem appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 27 Aug, 2020
Measuring is different from counting. However, in forensic science the two are often suggested to be the same. This needs to change. MEASURING Measuring is the assignment of a number, and all the uncertainties of that of that number, to something.  The purpose of assigning a number is to give meaning to the object measured. […] The post Measuring and Counting | Forensic Science appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 23 Aug, 2020
What Do You Give a Shit About? You probably haven’t really considered the question. Finding the answer is not as easy as it may seem. Looking inward is uncomfortable. Self-examination requires courage. It may also demand change. Once you see what you really give a shit about – you can’t unsee it. Once you define […] The post Give a shit? appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 10 Aug, 2020
The Vermont Supreme Court holds xx The Constitutional Question xx The Legal Answer(s)  A xx  majority opinion reversed the appellate court decision finding: xx xx XX The Facts Traffic Stop A Vermont state trooper monitoring traffic on an Interstate.  He observed a vehicle traveling northbound without its rear license plate illuminated. The officer stopped the […] The post Validity of Consent To Search | Vermont v. Weisler appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 05 Aug, 2020
Esketamine Drug DUI Cases Will Become An Issue in Arizona It is well established that Depression is a common and serious health problem. According to the World Health Organization the disease affects more than 264 million people. Common Depression Treatments Depression treatments typically include antidepressant medications that fall in a class of drugs known as […] The post Esketamine DUI: How is it Different than Ketamine? appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 27 Jul, 2020
Arizona has an incarceration problem. We incarcerate people at a higher rate than most other states and many other countries. Incarcerating such a high rate of people comes with both a social and economic cost. To address these issues, several years ago the Arizona legislature passed a law that authorized a portion of a jail […] The post Home Detention: Approved for Maricopa County in DUI Cases appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 21 Jul, 2020
In the November 2020 election, a restricted use of recreational marijuana will be on Arizona voter’s ballots. The ballot initiative essentially decriminalizes possession and use of small amounts of cannabis. Currently, possession of marijuana is a felony in Arizona. This initiative would end such prosecutions. Arizona’s Marijuana initiative is titled the Smart and Safe Arizona […] The post 9 Facts About Arizona’s Recreational Marijuana Initiative (2020) appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 26 Jun, 2020
Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion The Legal Question Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.  Does this mean the statute prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation? The Legal Answer Yes.  Employers who fire employees for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the […] The post Bostock v. Clayton County
Summary appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 02 May, 2020
Sometimes, what you need, is found in the last place you would ever expect it. When a teenage kid is caught in the middle of trying to steal the tires off the Batmobile you expect something to happen. You expect Batman to dispense his brand of “justice”.   https://youtu.be/7sVDEXfMdXo However, maybe his idea of justice […] The post Strength and Compassion of Batman [Updated 2020] appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
More Posts
Share by: