Rethinking Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
University of Arkansas School of Law
February 1, 2013
Search & Seizure Law Report, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 9, February 2013
University of Arkansas Research Paper No. 13-14
Why provide warnings to criminal suspects subject to custodial interrogation, but decline to require that citizens be informed of their right to refuse consent? And a related question: why did the Schneckloth majority opinion’s author, Justice Stewart, go so far as to assert that administering a right to refuse consent warning would be “thoroughly impractical”? This piece argues that Schneckloth should be overruled in light of dramatic changes in politics and our factual understanding of consent searches.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 9
Keywords: consent, search, seizure, Fourth Amendment, criminal procedure, Supreme Court, history
JEL Classification: K10, K14Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 16, 2013 ; Last revised: November 16, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.479 seconds