Ohio v. Robinette:   
United States Supreme Court, 1996. 

Statement of the Case:

      Ticketed motorist, Robinette, is seeking to suppress marijuana and a methamphetamine found in his car when he was pulled over, technically freed to leave, but consented to a police search of his car, claiming that he would not have if he knew he could have declined.

Procedure:

      Trial court allowed the evidence into court, but the Ohio Appellate and Supreme courts reversed for the D. They created a bright-line rule that “Any attempt at consensual interrogation must be preceded by the phrase ‘At this time, you are free to go.’”

Facts:

      Robinette was stopped for speeding in a construction zone, ticketed, technically freed to leave, but consented to a police search of his car, claiming that he would not have if he knew he could have declined.  The officer asked, “Before you go, can I search the car.”

Issue:

      Whether the 4^th Amendment requires that a lawfully seized D be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed for the State.

Holding:

      The 4^th Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized D be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary, as the voluntariness should be based on the totality of the circumstances.

Reasoning:

• Whren stated that an officer’s state of mind is not important in searching, just that he objectively does not violate the 4^th Amendment.  Subjective intentions are not important.
• There was probable cause to make the stop.
• Reasonable searches do not violate the 4^th Amendment, and reasonableness is based on the totality of the circumstances.
  • Knowledge of the right o refuse consent is only one factor in showing voluntariness, and the government does not necessarily need to show this knowledge.
• 4^th Amendment Test that Consent be Voluntary:  “Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.”

Concurring:

• The Ohio courts are free to create this higher standard for reasonableness in their own state, but they need to specifically write that it only applies in Ohio.

Dissent:

• The real problem is that the ? was not lawfully detained anymore, so whether it was a continued detention needs to be addressed by the court.
• The lawful traffic stop had ended, and this it was unreasonable to not tell Robinette that he could have left.

Additional Points: 

But what about Miranda rights???