Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Facts

At about 2:40 in the morning, Officer James Rand was on routine patrol in Sunnyvale, California. He stopped a car because one headlight and the license plate light were burned out. Six men were in the car. Gonzales was driving and could not produce a driver's license. Alcala, who sat in the front seat with Bustamonte, did have a license, and he said the car was his brother's. All six men got out at the officer's request, and two more policemen arrived. Rand then asked Alcala if he could search the car. Alcala answered, "Sure, go ahead." No one had been threatened with arrest, and Rand testified, without contradiction, that the atmosphere was congenial. Gonzales testified that Alcala helped with the search by opening the trunk and the glove compartment. Under the left rear seat, the officers found three checks that had been stolen from a car wash. Bustamonte was tried in a California court for possessing a check with intent to defraud. He moved to suppress the checks as the fruit of an unconstitutional search. The State did not contend that the police had probable cause to search the car or that the search was incident to a valid arrest. It relied on Alcala's consent.

Issues

1. To show that a consent to search was voluntarily given under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, must the prosecution prove that the person who consented knew he had a right to refuse?
2. Is a consent to search a waiver that must meet the knowing-and-intelligent standard that applies to waivers of trial rights?

Holding

Where the person searched was not in custody, the State need not prove he knew he could refuse. Consent is valid if it was in fact voluntary under all the circumstances. The Ninth Circuit's added knowledge requirement was wrong, so its judgment was reversed.