Rethinking Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Search & Seizure Law Report, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 9, February 2013

University of Arkansas Research Paper No. 13-14

9 Pages Posted: 16 Apr 2013 Last revised: 25 May 2016

Brian Gallini

University of Arkansas - School of Law

Date Written: February 1, 2013

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.

Keywords: consent, search, seizure, Fourth Amendment, criminal procedure, Supreme Court, history

JEL Classification: K10, K14

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2251195

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

Paper statistics

Downloads
59
Rank
297,769
Abstract Views
580