Ohio v. Robinette
| Ohio v. Robinette | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated October 8, 1996 |
||||
| Decided November 18, 1996 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Certiorari to clarify the question of whether traffic police officers have to indicate to the vehicle driver during a traffic control that the traffic control has ended before the vehicle driver can be asked for his consent to a voluntary vehicle search. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The 4th Amendment does not create an obligation for police officers to point out to those who are arrested at a traffic control that they are free to go before questions that are not related to the control are asked. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 4. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Ohio v. Robinette is a case before the United States Supreme Court on the rights of vehicle drivers at traffic controls, in particular the question of whether a vehicle driver must be notified of the end of a traffic control, and thus the right to continue driving, before the vehicle driver cancels his Consent to a search of his vehicle can be requested.
background
Robert Robinette ran into a traffic stop for speeding on Interstate Highway 70 near Dayton, Ohio. Robinette was asked to get out of the car and hand over his driver's license for inspection. Since there had been no traffic violations on the part of Robinettes so far, the policeman in charge left it with a verbal warning and handed him his vehicle documents again. Before Robinette could continue his journey, the policeman asked if there were drugs or weapons in the car, which Robinette denied and agreed that the policeman could search his car. Marijuana and an ecstasy tablet were found.
Robinette was arrested and later convicted of drug possession. In court he argued that the drugs found were inadmissible as evidence because it was an illegally ordered search. It was not clear to him that the traffic control had ended at the time the question about the vehicle search was raised. Under the impression of an ongoing vehicle inspection, he was not able to give his consent to the search freely.
judgment
The court upheld the search and sentenced Robinette. To order the police to announce the exact end of each traffic control is "unrealistic". Whether a person knows their right to refuse a search is irrelevant in the present case and consent is to be regarded as voluntary even without knowledge of this right.