Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1973

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 6 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Chambers Vs. Maroney US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1970
  2. Culombe Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  3. Chambers Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1940
  4. Haynes Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 27, 1963
  5. Turner Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  6. Reck Vs. Pate US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1961
  7. U.S. 218 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  8. U.S. 218 (1973) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  9. Katz v. United
    Search
  10. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  11. to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent. Davis v. United
    Search
  12. Zap v. Unite
    Search
  13. People v. Michael
    Search
  14. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, relying on its prior decisions in Cipres v. United
    Search
  15. States, 343 F.2d 95, and Schoep v. United
    Search
  16. The respondent concedes that a search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible. In Katz v. United
    Search
  17. States, 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 358 , and more recently in Vale v. Louisiana
    Search
  18. S. 30 , 399 U. S. 35 , we recognized that a search authorized by consent is wholly valid. See also Davis v. United
    Search
  19. Zap v. United
    Search
  20. Bumper v. North
    Search
  21. Carolina, 391 U. S. 543 , 391 U. S. 548 . See also Johnson v. United
    Search
  22. Amos v. United
    Search
  23. s knowledge is only one factor to be taken into account in assessing the voluntariness of a consent. See, e.g., People v. Treymayne
    Search
  24. People v. Roberts
    Search
  25. of a defendant's confession for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Almost 40 years ago, in Brown v. Mississippi
    Search
  26. Amendment. In some 30 different cases decided during the era that intervened between Brown and Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  27. is the acknowledged need for police questioning as a tool for the effective enforcement of criminal laws. See Culombe v. Connecticut
    Search
  28. escape prosecution, and many crimes would go unsolved. In short, the security of all would be diminished. Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  29. U. S. 199 , 361 U. S. 206 -207. See also Culombe v. Connecticut
    Search
  30. of the interrogation. Some of the factors taken into account have included the youth of the accused, e.g., Haley v. Ohio
    Search
  31. his lack of education, e.g., Payne v. Arkansas
    Search
  32. or his low intelligence, e.g., Fikes v. Alabama
    Search
  33. the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights, e.g., Davis v. North
    Search
  34. the length of detention, e.g., Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  35. the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning, e.g., Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  36. and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep, e.g., Reck v. Pate
    Search
  37. the psychological impact on the accused, and evaluated the legal significance of how the accused reacted. Culombe v. Connecticut
    Search
  38. each reflected a careful scrutiny of all the surrounding circumstances. See Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  39. of an accused's responses, they were not, in and of themselves, determinative. See, e.g., Davis v. North
    Search
  40. police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed. In the words of the classic admonition in Boyd v. United
    Search
  41. of a trial where, assisted by counsel if he chooses, a defendant is informed of his trial rights. Cf. Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  42. where, in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  43. of each case that is evidenced in our prior decisions involving consent searches. For example, in Davis v. United
    Search
  44. Id. at 328 U. S. 593 -594. See also Zap v. United
    Search
  45. a claim of lawful authority -- then we have found the consent invalid and the search unreasonable. See, e.g., Bumper v. North
    Search
  46. Johnson v. United
    Search
  47. Amos v. Page
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  49. Davis v. United
    Search
  50. Cipres v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial