The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 8, 1996
Decision: Monday, November 18, 1996
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure, Vehicles
Categories: criminal, fourth amendment, jurisdiction, searches and seizures

Advocates

Irving L. Gornstein (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae, in support of the petitioner)
Carley J. Ingram (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
James D. Ruppert (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

After stopping Robinette for speeding, an Ohio deputy warned him, returned his license, and asked him if he had any illegal contraband, weapons, or drugs in his car. Robinette answered "no" but after agreeing to have his car searched, the officer found some marijuana and a pill that later proved to be a powerful drug. On appeal from the Ohio Court of Appeals' reversal of his lower court conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the Ohio Supreme Court Affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Ohio certiorari.

Question

Does the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizures require that a lawfully detained defendant be told that he is "free to go" before he can be said to have voluntarily agreed to any subsequent search?

Conclusion

No. After establishing its federal jurisdiction, despite a claim that the matter involved aspects of Ohio's Constitution, the Court held that when looking at the totality of the circumstances it may be reasonably concluded that if a defendant consents to be searched, even if not first advised that he is "free to go," the ensuing search will be recognized as voluntary. The Court also added that Robinette's arrest on drug possession charges was lawful, even though the arresting officer did not stop him on an initial suspicion of drug possession nor intend to even issue him a speeding ticket.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for Ohio, 1 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Wrote a special concurrence
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_891/>
(last visited ).