TITLE AND CITATION: United States Supreme Court v. Robinette 533(1996)
TYPE OF ACTION: This a criminal case, Robinette wants the evidence seize from his vehicle in the traffic stop be suppressed for violating Fourth Amendment and search and seizure rights. Which Robinett claimed he was not free to go when the officer stated he was.
FACTS OF THE CASE: On August 3, 1992, Robert D. Robinette was stopped for a traffic violation in Ohio, the officer gave him a warning, returned his license and told him he was free to go. The officer than went a step further and asked Robinette did he have any illegal drugs or weapons in his vehicle, Robinette reply no and the officer asked him can he search his vehicle? Robinette although was told he was free to go, did not know he could have refused for the officer search his vehicle and said yes. The officer search Robinette vehicle, found marijuana and other illegal drug inside the vehicle. Robinette was arrested for possession of controlled substance. Robinette appealed at his trail to have the illegal drugs found inside his vehicle to be suppressed, the court of appeals reversed, the State Supreme Court affirmed. …show more content…
Ohio State Supreme Court argues that the Fourth Amendment demands that an officer advise a subject on a traffic stopped violation that he is free to go. Should the officer fail to do so, any subsequent cooperation by the motorist will be deemed to have been coerced, and any evidence found will be