Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLoewy, Arnold H.
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-31T17:07:04Z
dc.date.available2011-03-31T17:07:04Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citation79 Miss. L.J. 97en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10601/1336
dc.description.abstractThis Article argues that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), has led to a burgeoning jurisprudence of placing a premium on citizens’ ignorance of their Fourth Amendment rights. Police who have stopped a vehicle for a minor infraction, or for no infraction whatsoever, may simply ask the driver if they can search the car. Police do not have to inform the driver that he or she has a right to decline the search. While the majority would argue that such a warning would break the informality of the interaction between police and driver, the dissent states that the police could casually state that the driver can refuse. The police could use the following illustration: “Joe, I’d like you to let me search your car. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, but I’d sure appreciate it if you did.” No one need fear that informality will be broken. The Article puts forward Justice Thurgood Marshall’s Schneckloth dissent as a wise corrective measure to police valuing citizen ignorance. Justice Marshall clearly saw what the decision would do to the innocent, as well as the guilty, and perhaps most importantly to the Constitution that we are all supposed to live under.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherMississippi Law Journal
dc.relation.urihttp://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mislj79&id=99&collection=journals&index=journals/mislj
dc.relation.urihttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ia36dd3f2fa4311de9b8c850332338889/View/FullText.html
dc.relation.urihttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/4YGF-KXX0-00CW-F02X-00000-00?context=1000516
dc.relation.urihttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1556404
dc.subjectConsenten_US
dc.subjectCriminal lawen_US
dc.subjectKnowledgeen_US
dc.subjectFourth Amendment
dc.subjectSearch and seizure
dc.subjectConsent to search
dc.subjectConstitutional law
dc.titleKnowing "Consent" Means "Knowing Consent": The Underappreciated Wisdom of Justice Marshall's Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Dissenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record