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

See all articles by Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

Willamette University - College 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)

Willamette University - College of Law ( email )

245 Winter St. SE
Salem, OR 97301
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
69
Abstract Views
941
rank
377,233
PlumX Metrics