Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio v. Robinette , 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car .
Ohio v. Robinette: 519 U.S. 33 (1996) informing motorists that a traffic stop has ended and the motorist is "free to go" is not required under the Fourth Amendment: Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis: 519 U.S. 61 (1996) diversity of citizenship must exist at the time of entry of judgment M.L.B. v. S.L.J. 519 U.S. 102 (1996)
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v.
The person has the right to refuse to give consent, and except in limited cases may revoke consent at any point during the search. In addition, the prosecution in any trial using the search results as evidence is required to prove that the consent was voluntary and not a result of coercion.
As decided in Ohio v. Robinette (1996), after an officer returns the driver's identification, there is no requirement that the officer inform the driver of his or her freedom to leave; therefore, although the encounter has changed to a consensual encounter, questioning can continue, including a request to search the vehicle. [34]
AOL Mail welcomes Verizon customers to our safe and delightful email experience!
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car. Board of Education v.
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the exclusionary rule of evidence under the Fourth Amendment. [1] [2] Background.