Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2251195
 


 



Rethinking Schneckloth v. Bustamonte


Brian Gallini


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

Abstract:     
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, K14

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 16, 2013 ; Last revised: November 16, 2013

Suggested Citation

Gallini, Brian, Rethinking Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (February 1, 2013). Search & Seizure Law Report, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 9, February 2013; University of Arkansas Research Paper No. 13-14. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2251195

Contact Information

Brian Gallini (Contact Author)
University of Arkansas - School of Law ( email )
260 Waterman Hall
Fayetteville, AR 72701
United States
479-575-6973 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://law.uark.edu/faculty-staff/faculty-biography.html?user=bgallini

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 289
Downloads: 42

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.234 seconds