Legal Opinion
Ohio v. Robinette
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 18, 1996No. 95-891PublishedCited by 1,693 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
We are here presented with the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. We hold that it does not.
This case arose on a stretch of Interstate 70 north of Dayton, Ohio, where the posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour because of construction. Respondent Robert D. Robi-nette was clocked at 69 miles per hour as he drove his car along this stretch of road, and was stopped by Deputy Roger Newsome of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. New-some asked for…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,693 opinions
- Carmouche v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
- Wilson v. LayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
1,688 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.