Ohio v. Robert D. Robinette (519 U.S. 33)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 18, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 519 U.S. 33 · 117 S. Ct. 417
- Decided
- November 18, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. We are here presented with the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. We hold that it does not. This case arose on a stretch of Interstate 70 north of Dayton, Ohio, where the posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour because of construction. Respondent Robert D. Robi-nette was clocked at 69 miles per hour as he drove his car along this stretch of road, and was stopped by Deputy Roger Newsome of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. New-some asked for and was handed Robinette’s driver’s license, and he ran a computer check which indicated that Robinette had no previous violations. Newsome then asked Robinette to step out of his car, turned on his mounted video camera, issued a verbal warning to Robinette, and returned his license. At this point, Newsome asked, “One question before you get gone: ]A]re you carrying any illegal contraband in your car? Any weapons of any kind, drugs, anything like that?” App. to Brief for Respondent 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Robinette answered “no” to these questions, after which Deputy Newsome asked if he could search the car. Robinette consented. In the car, Deputy Newsome discovered a small amount of marijuana and, in a film…
Excerpt of a 9,639-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.