Citation network
Ohio Vs. Robinette
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 08, 1996
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
-
U.S. 33 (1996) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Ohio V. RobinetteSearch
-
is lacking because the Ohio decision rested in part upon the State Constitution is rejected under Michigan v. LongSearch
-
It is not dispositive that those citations appear only in the opinion and not in the official syllabus. Under Zacchini v. Scripps-HowardSearch
-
stop and there are no articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of some separate illegal activity. Under Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
voluntariness of a consent to search is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
W Bursen of Tennessee, Dan Morales of Texas, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III of Virginia, Darrell v. McGrawSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
decision rested upon the Ohio Constitution, in addition to the 37 Federal Constitution. Under Michigan v. LongSearch
-
See Ohio v. GallagherSearch
-
it is permissible for us to turn to the body of the opinion to discern the grounds for decision. Zacchini v. Scripps-HowardSearch
-
Respondent and his amici ask us to take this opportunity to depart from Michigan v. LongSearch
-
We are no more persuaded by this argument now than we were two Terms ago, see Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
The parties have briefed this issue, and we proceed to decide it. We think that under our recent decision in Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 813 (quoting Scott v. UnitedSearch
-
objectively justified in asking Robinette to get out of the car, subjective thoughts notwithstanding. See Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry. Thus, in Florida v. RoyerSearch
-
implicating the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 506. Then, in Michigan v. ChesternutSearch
-
Id., at 572-573. And again, in Florida v. BostickSearch
-
to that adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in determining the validity of a consent to search. In Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
prosecution, he requested consent to search in 786 traffic stops in 1992, the year of Robinette's arrest. State v. RetherfordSearch
-
The ambiguity in the Ohio Supreme Court's decision renders this Court's exercise of jurisdiction proper under Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Arnold v. ClevelandSearch
-
would require the rule in all 50 States. Given this Court's decisions in consent-to-search cases such as Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
U. S. 218 (1973), and Florida v. BostickSearch
-
as crafted by the Ohio Supreme Court to reduce the number of violations of textually guaranteed rights. In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
see also Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
the state court did not regard the Federal Constitution alone as a sufficient basis for its ruling. Compare Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
State v. FullerSearch
-
Court correctly answered both of those questions. The Ohio Supreme Court correctly relied upon United States v. MendenhallSearch
-
see Michigan v. ChesternutSearch
-
See also Florida v. BostickSearch
-
of Ohio Supreme Court's analysis in this case). We have indicated as much ourselves in the past. See Berkemer v. McCartySearch
-
officer successfully used a similar method of obtaining consent to search roughly 786 times in one year, State v. RetherfordSearch
-
be so. See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 28-29. Indeed, our holding in Florida v. JimenoSearch
-
that precedes an Ohio Supreme Court opinion, rather than the opinion itself, that states the law of the case. Cassidy v. GlossipSearch
-
see Migra v. WarrenSearch
-
Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
to a reasonable suspicion of some separate illegal activity that would justify further detention. See United States v. SharpeSearch
-
of either arresting or reprimanding the driver of the speeding car, his continued detention of that 8 Cf. Florida v. RoyerSearch
-
United States v. BrignoniPonceSearch
-
quoting Terry v. OhioSearch
-
with federallaw.9 The proper disposition follows as an application of wellsettled law. We held in Florida v. RoyerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial